Vice Ranking Member Brown Votes Against Partisan Farm Bill in Ag Committee Markup

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Shontel Brown (OH-11), Vice Ranking Member on the House Committee on Agriculture, voted against the majority’s one-sided partisan Farm Bill proposal this week. 

During markup, Vice Ranking Member Brown offered three amendments to improve the Farm Bill for families in need and small farms. Brown introduced amendments to: require that tariffs may not be changed until the Administration submits a full impact report to Congress, an amendment to repeal the expanded work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) created by the Republican Budget Bill (H.R. 1) signed last year, and an amendment to delay the new cost sharing requirements signed by H.R. 1. None of the amendments were adopted by the Republican Majority.  

“I couldn’t support this Farm Bill because it asks farmers and families to settle for less, at a moment they can least afford it. Instead of a serious effort at a bipartisan bill, the Republican Majority is simply going through the motions, ignoring the real pain being felt in the farm economy and at the kitchen table. Unfortunately, this bill shortchanges key programs, fails to provide farmers with certainty, and doubles down on cuts to food assistance programs at a time when hunger is rising. We should be working together on a Farm Bill that is good for all of America and can receive the bipartisan support needed in the House and Senate to actually become law and make a difference,” said Vice Ranking Member Brown.  

Vice Ranking Member Brown’s Opening Remarks in Committee (Video Here):

The farm bill is our opportunity to address the real issues facing farmers and families across the country. Yet this effort feels like we’re just going through the motions, not doing the hard, thoughtful work the committee owes the people we serve.

There was no meaningful effort to negotiate and put forth a bipartisan product.

The bill ignores the alarm bells from farmers and families in red and blue states that our nation’s most effective anti- hunger program is at risk after the financial rug was pulled out from under them in H.R. 1.

And there is a stark gap between what’s in this bill and what’s producers and growers are experiencing on the ground.

The farm economy is under real strain. Net farm income has fallen sharply. Input costs are up. Export markets have been destroyed thanks to the current trade war. And farm bankruptcies reached 15,000 last year, with the crisis hitting the hardest in the Midwest.

Don’t just take my word for it. A group of 27 trusted former USDA and farm group leaders sent a letter to this Committee last month, expressing concerns about the quote “harmful and compounding effect that Administration policies are having on our farmers.” Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter that letter into the record.

I share their concerns: staffing cuts and reorganization at USDA. Continued delay in passing year-round E15. Cuts to food aid – both international and domestic. Persistent labor challenges. Lost markets. Deteriorating trade relationships. These are the same concerns I hear reflected on the ground, and this bill fails to address any of them.

And, of course, we can’t talk about the state of the farm economy without talking about tariffs. For farmers, the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling comes after much of the damage is already done. For months, they’ve been operating in chaos. Markets they spent years building disappeared almost overnight. And just like in 2018, buyers are turning to countries like Argentina and Brazil.

That’s not theoretical—that’s lost contracts, lost income, and real uncertainty heading into planting season.

Producers, growers, and ranchers don’t want handouts.

They want stability. They want to know that if they grow it, they can sell it.

So when we sit here and talk about what this Farm Bill should do, it ought to start with that reality.

At the same time, rural communities, like those in southeast Ohio, northern Pennsylvania, and central Illinois, are being hollowed out by hospital cuts, childcare shortages, and small business closures. This is not spin; this is the lived reality for farmers and rural families and communities trying to hang on.

And this crisis runs from the farm gate to the dinner plate. While farmers struggle to stay afloat, families in Cleveland are paying more and getting less at the grocery store. Prices continue to climb, and for the 1 in 5 households in my district who depend on nutrition assistance, that means impossible choices.

We haven’t had a hearing in this Committee on anything touched by the Farm Bill in nearly 6 months, and the result is a bill that leaves small producers, specialty crop farmers, families, and tribal communities behind.

And this bill takes new aim at the very partners helping hold communities together. It shifts costs onto charitable food networks, like the gold-standard Greater Cleveland Food Bank in my district, that are already stretched thin. It undercuts conservation programs that farmers rely on to manage risk. It shortchanges research institutions and land grants, including by missing the opportunity to make 1890 scholarships permanent for schools like Ohio’s Central State.

And it is impossible to divorce what we are considering here today from the cuts that Republicans made in H.R. 1. At a time when 47 million Americans are food insecure, this Committee chose to crack the farm bill coalition in half and use food assistance as a pay for.

The Farm Bill is supposed to be the foundation of both farm stability and food security. 

We should be focused on rebuilding coalitions that reflect the full food system and pushing for durable, bipartisan solutions that actually meet this moment.

That’s how we rebuild trust. That’s how we break this cycle of gridlock. And that’s how, after years of delay, we deliver a Farm Bill that actually works for the people it’s supposed to serve.

Sadly, this bill – and this process – falls well short of that standard.