Glenn Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is really important to understand what is and what is not in this amendment. Preventing USDA from entering into unnecessary research relationships with adversarial nations, such as China and Russia, really is a critical step in ensuring the security of our U.S. research infrastructure. It is even more important when doing so prevents unnecessary research on vertebrate species. This amendment affirms actions that have already been taken by the administration to prevent this type of work, while still allowing for narrow waiver authority in the case of unavoidable research in the name of national security. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for bringing forward this amendment. I think it is important for Congress to get more information from USDA and States on the pilot projects that restrict SNAP purchases, as it is this body who ultimately decides what changes, if any, are made permanently at the Federal level. I have looked warily at USDA offering all of these waivers. Today, 22 States have been approved by USDA to test the ban. I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii really laying out just the confusion and chaos. I guess we will look at it as the laboratories of innovation to test the ban on the purchase of certain food and beverages with SNAP benefits. I think they missed the mark because the average SNAP beneficiary uses at least three forms of payment and plenty of their own cash or a check or a debit card to satisfy that sweet tooth that I find most families have. That is sad. So I support the gentleman's amendment because I think we need to have feedback. However, only 10 of those waivers are in effect, with the remainder to be in later this year in 2027, early 2028. This amendment ensures that, upon completion of the waivers, Congress receives a robust evaluation of the pilots, along with recommendations from the USDA regarding changes to the Federal definition of ``eligible foods'' because, frankly, that is our job under Article I to determine that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for offering this amendment. Access to Federal lands for grazing is extremely important for supporting producers, particularly in the West. While the framework for grazing permits on Federal lands is provided through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the law references lands within national forests, rather than the broader National Forest System. This amendment is intended to ensure permit renewals for grazing on grasslands is similar to and more consistent with such renewals on other forest land. It is an efficiency measure, as well. I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, animal disease traceability is an extremely important aspect of protecting our domestic livestock herds and our foreign trade markets. We have already seen the importance of animal disease traceability and EID tags with dairy cattle due to the ongoing outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza. USDA helps producers comply with this rule by providing the tags at no cost to producers, and the rule this amendment seeks to repeal has been in effect for more than 18 months already with no negative consequences. Producers recognize that animal disease traceability is an essential component of protecting livestock during an animal disease outbreak. We cannot allow ourselves to be in a position where efforts to improve animal disease traceability are hampered. For this reason I must respectfully oppose the gentlewoman from Wyoming's amendment offered by my good friend from Wisconsin, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), the ranking member of the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology Subcommittee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with the gentlewoman more. We have seen significant examples of how important these EID tags have been in tracking the highly pathogenic avian influenza as it has gotten into our dairy cows in different parts of the country. She referenced the New World screwworm. That is a huge threat to the United States. Thankfully, so far we have successfully avoided that with the building of the different production facilities for sterile flies, which is really the proven solution or remedy to that. Being able to track the cattle--once again, we cannot hamper our ability to improve animal disease traceability. With the greatest respect to the gentlewoman who was the author of this amendment, I encourage all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for her amendment and for the ranking member representing her this evening. This amendment would increase the loan guarantee cap for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to $400 million. This mandatory funded program, last funded in 2020, has a large unobligated balance, and raising the loan caps will ensure needed projects get funded. Bipartisan amendments like these continue to improve the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I find it sad that we enter into cheap shots regarding organizations that, when they see something that you are working hard on behalf of the American farmer, and they want to make a legal, ethical donation, they can do that. That tells me that the arguments on the other side are pretty shallow, and they are emotional. They are not science-based. The sections that this amendment seeks to strike deliver commonsense regulatory reforms that are critical for securing access to well- regulated pesticide tools for a variety of crop production and public health needs. The language also reflects thoughtful changes to address stakeholder concerns, such as making sure it is crystal clear that the EPA can still respond quickly to new scientific findings and that existing State authorities are maintained. The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statutes that the EPA is the authoritative voice for making safety findings related to pesticides communicated through legal, binding labels while retaining States' authority for the sale, use, and distribution of crop protections. I don't know if Maine and Florida have toxicologists on staff. I would tell you that I am absolutely confident that less than half of the States have the qualified individuals in order to put forward labeling. The gentleman from Georgia is right. This is about a labeling bill and making sure that we are--and, by the way, the States can weigh in with the EPA. They just have to go through the EPA if they have special circumstances for labeling. The bill in front of us today reaffirms existing statute that the EPA--this includes States' ability to not register a product at all within the jurisdiction. Regulatory certainty in making sure that there is a clear science-based regulatory system that is rooted in scientific review from the EPA, not courtroom science that overrides Federal findings, is what producers need. Frankly, it is disappointing that this body has to revisit and clarify existing statutes to reaffirm the State labeling laws, such as California Proposition 65, which has already been found to be in violation of the Constitution when applied to products containing glyphosate, which are not allowed under the existing law because trial lawyers have scrambled to find every possible loophole in Federal law. Additionally, this package also provides States who have a formal relationship with the EPA as co-regulators on pesticide products with clarity that they are able to submit. Mr. Chair, I encourage the defeat of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for managing it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding. I thank my good friend from Maine who has the best tasting kelp I have ever had. It was delicious along with everything else. I was happy to see USDA established a new Office of Seafood this month to better support and serve our seafood industry, helping to enable the administration's America first seafood strategy. American seafood is a vital part of the U.S. food supply. I think it is a vital part of American agriculture. Codifying this office will ensure that this support continues for years to come by providing dedicated resources, time, and coordination for the industry. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, for many of our Nation's coastal areas, fishermen represent not just a way to make a living, but they are the embodiment of the community's culture. Although commercial fishermen catch 8.4 billion pounds of seafood each year, they do not qualify for the same access to credit as many of our Nation's other food producers due to their unique business structure. Adopting this amendment is one of the many actions that we can take to expand access to credit for these vital businesses that serve as a lifeblood of their coastal communities, and our ag lenders are already uniquely suited to provide this capital. That being said, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for introducing this amendment. I did not support the amendment that passed out of committee by voice vote banning greyhound racing nationwide. I think a ban is heavyhanded. It sets a dangerous precedent, and it doesn't take into consideration the tracks that are currently in operation, which are basically just two in West Virginia. There are only two greyhound racetracks left in the country, both of which are located in West Virginia, one of the tracks being located in Mr. Moore's district. Mr. Moore's amendment strikes a fair compromise by maintaining the ban on any future operations outside of West Virginia while preserving the tracks and associated jobs that already exist. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Colorado. The Emergency Watershed Protection Program offers financial and technical assistance to eligible participants for watershed impairments after flooding, fires, or other natural disasters. This program is important for addressing such urgent threats, including the removal of debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges protecting stream banks, establishing vegetative cover on eroding lands, and repairing some conservation practices. This amendment would help encourage quicker response by ensuring that partner costs can be considered as part of the match if incurred prior to entering into an agreement. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their interest in a program with tremendous potential to deliver solutions for our Nation's producers, the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority Program, also known as AGARDA. Modeled off of similar programs in the defense and energy sectors, AGARDA is focused on filling high-risk areas where there is high payoff potential, but the private sector is unlikely to undertake research alone. While I appreciate the interest in strengthening this program, promoting climate solutions does not fit into the underlying mission of AGARDA and takes away from its mission. We see substantial investment from the private sector and miscellaneous nongovernment organizations on this topic, and it would be inappropriate to add to this program when these activities are already well-funded. For this reason, I will not be supporting this amendment's inclusion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing forward this amendment. This is a win-win for agriculture and for our neighbors in need. By streamlining applications for nutrition programs redeemed at farmers' markets and stands, this amendment will remove bureaucratic red tape and expand markets for our farmers and ranchers while increasing access to fresh, locally grown food for lower-income families. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. Our system of voluntary, incentive-based, and locally led conservation is a proven model providing benefits to both producer and the environment. Conservation programs also provide important benefits for wildlife habitat as we see in the case of the SAFE Initiative and other programs like the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program. Since acres are typically enrolled in SAFE through the continuous enrollment option, this amendment would simply codify that. As such, I support the amendment and I urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. today.