Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Rules Committee hears vigorous debate on five‑year Farm, Food and National Security Act
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses and members sharply debated HR 7,567 at the House Rules Committee hearing, with sponsors calling it a bipartisan package to provide certainty to producers and opponents warning it locks in $187 billion in SNAP cuts and limits state authority on pesticide rules.
Chairwoman Fox convened the House Rules Committee to consider HR 7,567, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, and other measures. The bill’s supporters, led by Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, said it reflects field input from listening sessions in 43 states and aims to provide policy certainty for farmers.
"This bill is unique because it wasn't written in Washington," Thompson said in his testimony, listing crop‑insurance, conservation and trade provisions he said would help producers. He noted more than 500 stakeholder organizations have expressed support for the measure.
Opponents on the panel and in the Rules Committee framed the bill differently. Ranking Member Congressman James McGovern said the bill "is a disaster" that locks in sweeping cuts to nutrition assistance and prioritizes industry giveaways over affordability. McGovern highlighted recent implementation of earlier SNAP changes and said "3,000,000 people have already been cut off of food assistance," citing USDA data made central to the debate.
A principal point of contention was language members described as preempting states from setting labeling or packaging requirements that differ from EPA approvals. Democrats and some Republicans warned those provisions could operate as a de facto liability shield for pesticide manufacturers in "failure to warn" lawsuits. Thompson and other supporters said the text preserves the ability to sue "bad actors" who provided misleading information to the EPA and that compliance with federal labeling would not bar fraud or negligence claims.
Members pressed the Agriculture chair about amendments. Ranking Member Angie Craig and others asked whether the Pingree‑Massey amendment addressing pesticide liability would be made in order; the chair said he supported regular order but that rules committee staff decide which amendments are permitted on the floor.
Throughout the hearing, lawmakers also focused on SNAP implementation and program integrity. Supporters of the bill argued that certain program changes strengthen program integrity and encourage employment and training; critics said the bill and related reconciliation plans would shift costs to states and deepen hunger among vulnerable families.
The Rules Committee heard many member amendment pitches after the witness panels concluded: proposals ranged from restoring SNAP funding and changing cost‑sharing rules to targeted rural investments, specialty crop relief, and limits on federal preemption of state food‑safety or animal‑welfare laws. No final votes were recorded in this hearing; the committee recessed pending further action.
The next procedural step is for the Rules Committee to complete its work on which amendments will be made in order and for the House to consider the measure on the floor subject to the rule the committee reports.
