Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will help to continue to strengthen the recent SNAP reforms by requiring a report on the SNAP- eligible food pilot programs and directing the Department of Agriculture to provide Congress with recommendations on potential updates to the definition of ``eligible foods'' under the program.

SNAP is one of the largest nutrition programs in the country. It is intended to help low-income Americans put food on the table, and it plays an essential role in supporting families in need. At the same time, it is funded by taxpayers, and we have a responsibility to ensure that it is working as intended.

As part of the broader nutrition programs in this bill, Congress has taken steps to strengthen the connection between Federal nutrition programs and improved health outcomes. This is part of the MAHA movement.

This amendment supports that effort by ensuring that we evaluate the results of SNAP pilot programs and make informed, data-driven decisions about the program's future.

We know there is a growing concern about how taxpayer dollars are being used within SNAP, particularly regarding which types of foods are eligible for purchase. It is something I hear about every time I go to the grocery store. Through recent reforms, Congress authorized pilot programs allowing States to test ways to better align SNAP purchases with healthier food options.

This amendment ensures that work continues by requiring USDA to report back to Congress on the feasibility, implementation, and effectiveness of these pilot programs, along with recommendations for any necessary statutory changes. It takes a measured approach: gathering the facts first and allowing Congress to make thoughtful decisions based on real-world results.

Ultimately, this is about improving outcomes for families, providing better nutrition, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to it leading to a thinner, healthier America. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one follow-up there on that. We talk about making life easier. Life is easier if you don't become diabetic. Life is easier if you are thinner. As a result, the overall effect of this amendment will make life easier for people. You have to remember that a lot of this food that is bought on food stamps is going to wind up on the table of young children, so we particularly want to look out for them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ms. Hageman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 21 to the farm bill, which would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other Federal lands.

Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, authorizes grazing permits for 10 years on national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance.

Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for 10 years but is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLPMA.

Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experienced unnecessary hurdles with the USDA in obtaining these renewals.

When this topic received a legislative hearing, Ty Checketts, the president of the National Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that the exclusion of national grasslands under FLPMA creates two classes of permits with the grasslands having fewer rights. He testified that the lack of assurance leads to real world harms, pointing to the loss of AUMs on multiple grasslands across several States.

U.S. Forest Service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between national forests and national grasslands.

This amendment is a permanent fix to this issue providing much-needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to 10-year permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support amendment No. 21 to support grazers on our national grasslands. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Hageman, I have an amendment at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment 22 to the farm bill, which repeals and prohibits future implementation of the electronic identification, or EID, ear tag rule.

In 2013, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, issued the Animal Disease Traceability Rule, which allowed the use of ear tags, brands, and tattoos for livestock identification in interstate commerce.

In November 2024, APHIS amended the ADT rule to mandate EID ear tags for cattle and bison moving interstate, despite overwhelming opposition to such efforts.

Ranchers and producers are opposed for a multitude of reasons. The rule is the product of a flawed rulemaking. APHIS did not conduct a federalism analysis, even though States have identification regulations and laws. It did not conduct an adequate small business analysis, even though APHIS admitted the rule would burden small operators. APHIS intentionally undercounted the cost of the rule, basing it just on the cost of the EID tags and not an entire EID system.

EID is a government mandate on farmers and ranchers, and one which the Animal Health Protection Act does not authorize APHIS to create or enforce.

Because APHIS incorrectly calculated the cost of the rule, it is also an underfunded mandate. Since the demand for EID tags is driven not by actual market demand but by government mandate, ranchers are facing tag shortages, harming their ability to comply with the rule.

If the government cannot provide tags to the regulated community, then this mandate is cost prohibitive for producers, which jeopardizes their future operations and risks additional vertical integration in the increasingly consolidated food supply chain.

This government mandate also raises privacy concerns for ranchers and their herds based on information collected through the EID system, concerns which APHIS never adequately addressed in the rule.

The rule's application to bison also disadvantages Tribal bison ranchers who manage bison as wildlife, not as livestock.

Because of all of these issues, it is nearly 2 years later and ranchers are still facing EID tag shortages. The cost of EID tags on the private market increased because of its fallout--all this harm for a regulation that is not needed as the U.S. already had a well- functioning animal disease traceability system. APHIS even conceded in the rulemaking that foreign animal disease had largely been excluded from the country.

Ranchers and farmers should be allowed to adopt the best practices for their business and herds voluntarily when it makes sense for them, not at the behest of a Federal agency.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support amendment No. 22 and finally end the EID ear tag mandate on America's ranchers.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, we could talk at length the degree to which our welfare system allows people to buy things or use services that the average person in our society, at least if they are appropriately frugal, do not use. The easiest one that we should put an end to is this idea of unhealthy, sugary drinks.

The gentlewoman talks about making life easier. If you want to make life tougher, you give people a lot of Mountain Dew and increase the amount of obesity and increase the amount of diabetes. That is not a good thing.

That is particularly not a good thing when you consider some of the money you are getting on your food stamps goes to your kids. I mean, I feel horrible if I am in a grocery store and I see somebody use food stamps for these soft drinks, and they have got little kids with them. We should just not do that.

Like I said, I think the average person in our society does not spend money on this stuff, and we shouldn't be giving it to people in the welfare program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source