Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Bill

Summary

The House Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies convened to mark up the FY26 Appropriations Bill, which proposes significant funding changes for various programs. The bill was favorably reported to the full committee with a vote of nine ayes to seven noes, reflecting deep partisan divisions over its contents and fiscal approach.

Fiscal Responsibility and Spending Reductions

The bill's proponents emphasized a commitment to fiscal responsibility, citing a $2 trillion deficit and a necessary 4.2 percent decrease in discretionary allocation from FY25 levels. They asserted the legislation reflects conservative values by reducing federal bureaucracy, rooting out wasteful spending, and incorporating efficiencies identified by the administration. The cuts were described as "tough but right decisions" to prevent "crippling inflation" and refocus the department on core missions. Opponents, however, countered that the bill increases the national debt and shifts costs to working families while providing tax breaks for the wealthy. They argued that these cuts, including a $2.4 trillion increase to the deficit from related legislation, contradict claims of fiscal discipline and disproportionately harm vulnerable populations.

Impact on Social and Nutrition Programs

A major point of contention was the proposed cuts to social and nutrition programs, particularly the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The bill maintains WIC funding at FY25 levels but rescinds $100 million and implements a 10 percent reduction in the cash value voucher to pre-COVID levels. [ 00:31:54 ] Critics argued these cuts would harm mothers, babies, and breastfeeding mothers, especially given rising food costs, and constitute "nutritional sabotage." [ 00:44:51 ]

Concerns were also raised about the reduction of Food for Peace funding to its lowest level since 2002, which opponents described as undermining U.S. leadership and creating global instability. The bill's language on allowing states to restrict "unhealthy" food purchases with SNAP benefits and a feasibility study for a "Buy American" requirement for SNAP were presented by proponents as prioritizing health and supporting American farmers. However, opponents worried about compromising recipients' privacy and increasing hunger.

Support for Farmers and Rural Communities

Proponents stated the bill prioritizes American farmers and ranchers by investing in animal and plant health (APHIS), farmer-facing agencies (FSA, RMA), and critical agricultural research to maintain competitiveness. [ 00:31:44-00:31:54 ] It also includes funding for rural development programs, infrastructure like water, wastewater, and broadband, and certain rural housing initiatives. Conversely, opponents heavily criticized cuts to rural housing ($1.8 billion), water and waste projects ($44 million), broadband grants, and conservation programs (5% for NRCS). [ 00:44:59 ]

They also voiced alarm over staffing cuts to agencies like FSA and Rural Development, which they argued would make it harder for farmers to access crucial programs. The elimination of the urban agriculture and innovative production program was also decried as undermining local food efforts.

Federal Regulatory Oversight and Administration Criticisms

The bill's supporters championed efforts to reduce federal bureaucracy, end "woke agenda" programs, and withdraw "harmful Biden-era costly regulations" impacting poultry and livestock producers. They also proposed strengthening national security by preventing foreign adversaries like China from purchasing farmland and closing a "hemp loophole" that led to intoxicating cannabinoid products. Opponents, however, condemned cuts to the FDA (over $320 million) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ($30 million), arguing these would compromise public health, food safety, and the ability to combat cybercrime. They further criticized the Trump administration for "illegally stolen funding" and alleged actions undermining FDA's regulatory power over tobacco and promoting a "wasteful review" of mifepristone based on "junk science." Democrats also expressed severe disappointment with the legislative process, citing a lack of hearings, late bill text, and a perceived yielding of authority to the executive branch and outside influencers. [ 00:59:44-00:59:47 ]

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting was characterized by strong partisan division and a confrontational atmosphere. Proponents of the bill, primarily Republicans, maintained a firm and confident tone, asserting the necessity of the proposed cuts for fiscal responsibility and correcting past administrative excesses. Opponents, largely Democrats, expressed deep disappointment and outrage, using sharp language to describe the bill as "not up to the task," "unconscionable," and driven by an "ideological agenda" that harms vulnerable populations and vital programs. [ 00:44:35 ]

The exchanges highlighted fundamental disagreements over budgetary priorities, governmental roles, and the impact of the proposed legislation on American citizens.