Subcommittee advances FY26 agriculture, rural development and FDA spending bill after partisan debate

Chairman Harris, the subcommittee chair, opened the markup of the fiscal year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies appropriations bill, saying the subcommittee’s discretionary allocation for USDA, FDA and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is $25,500,000,000 — a $1,100,000,000, or 4.2%, decrease from FY25 enacted levels. "In a setting of $2,000,000,000,000 deficits, that modest constraint is necessary," he said.

The bill funds several USDA priorities while trimming other programs. "This bill provides 1,150,000,000.00 for the animal and plant health inspection service, APHIS," Harris said, adding the legislation sustains investments in farm programs, disaster assistance and crop insurance administration. The bill also provides $7,600,000,000 for WIC, rescinds $100,000,000 from carryover balances and implements a 10% reduction in the WIC cash value voucher to reset benefits toward pre-pandemic levels, according to the chairman's remarks.

Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, said he could not support the measure. Bishop said the bill "cuts a hundred million dollars in WIC funds below last year, hurting our most vulnerable," and cited reductions he said would harm rural housing and water projects, including a $1,800,000,000 cut to rural housing programs and $44,000,000 in cuts to water and waste grants. He also said the bill reduces staffing for field offices, citing a 9% ($109,000,000) cut to the Farm Service Agency and a $46,000,000 (13%) cut to rural development staffing.

Full committee Chairman Cole and other supporters framed the bill as part of a broader effort to rein in deficit spending. Cole praised the subcommittee for "refocused us to the core missions" and described the measure as a modest, thoughtful set of cuts intended to reduce federal spending pressures.

Other Democrats at the markup, including Ranking Member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and representatives who identified themselves from Maine, Illinois, Florida and Ohio, sharply criticized the bill for cuts to nutrition, rural infrastructure and research. DeLauro said cuts to nutrition and food programs were politically and practically wrong, arguing the bill would reduce food assistance at home and abroad and harm programs such as local food purchases for schools. A member from Illinois criticized language that she said would direct a review of mifepristone and said the bill would undermine FDA authority and public-health work.

Policy and program provisions discussed during the markup included: a proposal to transfer administration of the Food for Peace program from the State Department back to USDA; closing the 2018 Farm Bill hemp-related loophole for intoxicating cannabinoid products; codifying USDA authority to grant SNAP waivers that could restrict purchases; and directing a feasibility study of a buy-American requirement in SNAP. The legislation also includes $90,000,000 for the ReConnect broadband program and provides $3,200,000,000 in direct appropriations for FDA; with increased user fees, the chairman said FDA would have a total budget of $6,800,000,000.

Debate at the markup reflected predictable partisan differences: supporters emphasized fiscal restraint and redirecting resources to core USDA missions, while opponents warned that cuts to WIC, rural housing, rural infrastructure, conservation and food aid would harm vulnerable families, farmers and rural communities. Several Democrats also raised concerns about process, saying the committee had too little time to review the text and lacked oversight information about how prior-year funds were spent.

Vice Chairman Franklin moved that the bill be favorably reported to the full committee. A recorded roll-call vote was ordered. The clerk recorded the following votes: Aderholt — yes; Klein — yes; Franklin — yes; Harris — yes; Henson — yes; Letlow — yes; Molineaux — yes; Newhouse — yes; Valadao — yes; Bishop — no; Delauro — no; Glusenkamp Perez — no; Kaptur — no; Pingree — no; Underwood — no; Wasserman Schultz — no. The clerk later announced the tally: ayes 9, nos 7. The chair declared the ayes the prevailing side and ordered the bill favorably reported to the full committee.

Before adjournment the chair asked unanimous consent to allow staff to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report; the panel approved the request "without objection." The committee then adjourned.