Latest / REAP/SOW / Rep. Kat Cammack to Congress: Grow up and pass the farm bill

Transcript

Rep. Kat Cammack to Congress: Grow up and pass the farm bill · REAP/SOW

• Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked. I'm Theodore Ross, editor-in-chief of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, and I'm joined by my co-host Helena Bottemiller Evich from Food Fix. We're joined today by Kat Cammack, congresswoman from Florida, GOP rising star, and a member of the House Agriculture Committee, home of the very delayed and possibly DOA Farm Bill. It's an in-depth conversation on the issues, ideas, and legislation scrambling the American food system. She may also have a thing or two to say about the MAHA movement. Just how PO'd are they actually at Republicans? Enough to vote blue or maybe just not vote. Let's do this. Helena, welcome back to Forked. So glad to have you here. Congresswoman, we are also very, very happy to have you. Welcome to the show. Very excited to talk to you about all the issues. Helena, you're up first. Helena Bottemiller Evich: Thank you so much, Congresswoman. We appreciate it. I wanted to just start by talking about one of the big storylines that Ted and I have been talking about for a while, which is this idea that the MAHA movement, or this MAHA alliance with MAGA, is going to be a force or a factor in the upcoming midterms. Obviously, everyone's very focused on what's going to happen in the midterms. I'm curious what you think about that and how you think about MAHA in terms of the looming midterms. Kat Cammack: A couple of things. Obviously, in the presidential, you saw this marriage occur between the MAGA movement and the MAHA movement. It was really cool because, as a new mom, as someone who's really paying attention to labels, before I had my baby, what was it? The Yuka app, and I was scanning everything and checking what's in stuff. Then as a mom, you're really trying to decipher labels. I feel like before there was a name on it, MAHA, there were a lot of people, they were doing things that weren't really labeled. That marriage during the election really brought out a lot of key issues that so many of us have cared about and really hadn't had a national platform for. You fast-forward through the two years since that initial betrothal. I will say that it's had its ups and downs, but by and large, I have seen where this administration has been willing to actually do the things that people have talked about but have never really had the courage to do. It's because it's not really sexy work. It's very in the weeds, and it can be a little bit of a slog to work through the red tape and all the agencies that are involved in so many of the policies around MAHA. In terms of the midterms, I do think as I talk to, especially my fellow moms in my community, my friends that I grew up with, many of them are still very actively engaged and still wanting to see a lot of reforms made. I think that even though it may not be as prominent as it was in the 2024 election, you're going to see a lot of, especially MAHA moms, come out in the 2026 election. Helena: Do you think that they will stick with Republicans? There's also a lot of MAHA leaders that are really frustrated that the administration hasn't done more. They've backed glyphosate. They haven't banned any food additives yet. There's, I think, a frustration that the actions of the administration don't always match the intentions of MAHA or the promises of MAHA. Do you hear any of that frustration, or are any of those folks coming to you and complaining about it, or do you have a vibe check on it? Kat: Yes. No, I think that there's absolutely frustrations. I speak with my friends in the MAHA movement often, Calley Means being one of them. Talking with Calley, I really think that he has seen firsthand the battle that is the push and the pull happening within the administration, almost better than I would say members of Congress. I see it from my perch being on both the Agricultural Committee and then on Energy and Commerce. Of course, under the Ag jurisdiction, we have elements of FDA, but not exclusively, and not even the majority of the jurisdiction, but USDA is a critical part. Then under E&C, I have the full jurisdiction of FDA and CDC and NIH and NSF and all these agencies. I think it's a really unique position to be in because I'm more of the optimist in this conversation. I would say not this particular one, but in the broader conversation where you have seen where MAHA and maybe the Ag world tend to butt heads. I really think we need both to come to the table if we're going to actually be successful moving ahead. I don't think that it's always been communicated where the two can work together well. You've seen that play out in real time. Obviously, the Farm Bill has some contentious parts in it that I feel like get really caught up in the outrage politics and some of the anger-tainment of, "Oh, I see this headline." Then you're like, "Well, of course, anyone who sees that headline has a right to be upset." Then you start digging into the policy, and you're like, "Oh, shit. Okay. This is far more complicated than a soundbite would lead you to believe." I really feel like we've got to have that moment where we all come to the table and say, "This is how we move forward. We're all at risk of sounding like a bumper sticker on the back of a Prius. We've got to coexist." [chuckles] I think it's possible. I really do. I really, really do. It just requires everyone getting in the room and being willing to have a conversation. Theodore: I'm going to jump in and switch gears a little bit. We are going to talk, I hope, about the Farm Bill and the state of play there in a little bit. Before we get to that, I want to talk about one of your legislative priorities, the REINS Act. For those of you keeping score at home, that is the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. For those of us interested in food policy, make the case for the REINS Act. Why, from a food system point of view, would this be good if it passed? Kat: Yes. What's interesting, particularly in the way of food systems is we really have not seen an effort to modernize the FDA in a long time. Instead, what you have is a patchwork system, not just among states, but in some cases, you have municipalities that are engaging in a rulemaking process. I always believe, just at my core, that the people have to be front and center in the rulemaking process. It can't be bureaucrats. Historically, you have the spirits of a law basically being perverted in the rulemaking and regulatory-making process. You look at our Federal Register, you've got over 100,000 different regulations, 11 pages alone dedicated to regulating the size and diameter of spaghetti, randomly, right? Theodore: Right. Very important. Very important. [crosstalk] Kat: [laughs] Yes. Helena: Is it, though? [laughs] Kat: Yes. I'm like, "Hmm, interesting." We don't test for heavy metals in baby food and formula, but spaghetti, right? It's that weird dynamic where you have the heavy hand of government coming in and really crushing industry. It's because I think Article 1 has slipped through the fingers of the legislative branch. They haven't really taken responsibility or authority on so many issues that their constituents expect them to. It's all been kicked over to the administration. This is really Republicans and Democrats alike. Those administrations throughout decades have really grown the size and scope of government. When it comes to any industry, they're like, "Well, I'm subjected to this rule or regulation that's going to cost me millions, or in many cases, billions of dollars to comply." When it hurts an industry or ultimately hurts consumers, people are like, "Well, I'm going to yell at my member of Congress as they should," but the problem is that the member of Congress has removed themself from that process. When we're talking about food policy, especially, I really think that it should be lawmakers that are elected by constituents that serve in the people's house that should have a final say in the regulatory process. You don't want a career bureaucrat making decisions that they can't really be held accountable for. You want to be able to hold your members of Congress accountable. I think that's why it's so important that we put the people back in the driver's seat because that is really going to empower people to have a stake in every decision along the way. Theodore: I just want to follow up on this a little bit. Let's do the dreaded "critics say." What do you say to the critics of it that it's basically an attack on regulation and that it would have real consequences for things like food safety? Kat: Well, I mean, I would argue, one, that as it relates to food safety, and I know we're going to talk a little bit about some legislation that we're exploring right now in the way of modernizing the FDA. In the areas where it has mattered most, the federal regulatory regime has failed, or lack thereof. Then, of course, I hear, "Well, more regulations is going to make something better or safer." That has been consistently proven false. We know that to be true because when you get to a place of a regulatory regime that is virtually unworkable, you have some of the best producers domestically going out of business. I'll give you an example. In the early 2000s, we had about 250 different commercial tomato producers in Florida alone. You can compare apples to apples in the state of Florida producing the exact same type of tomatoes. Then we'll just use Mexico as an example, right? What we pay in an hour, they pay in a day. What pesticides, what chemicals, and things that they're putting on their crops in Mexico have been outlawed in this country for over 50 years. What ends up happening is the regulatory regime is also completely different. The rules that our farmers have to abide by in the United States, in Florida in this case, they're wildly different than those in Mexico or other countries. It is a completely unfair advantage. You fast-forward to today, and you have 23 commercial tomato operations in the state of Florida today. While people can say, "Oh, I am going to look for the cheapest option." That's fine, but we have to remember that food security is national security first and foremost. Then also, we can be responsible for what is happening in our own food ecosystem. We cannot in other countries. I've been on operations in other countries from Mexico to Vietnam, and there are things that I do not eat today as a result of those experiences when I know that food is coming from abroad. I would put forth that our American farmers and ranchers produce some of the best quality crops and products, and I would put them up against any producer in the world. I think that the regulatory regime, so talking about REINS, you take some of that burden off of them, you will allow them to actually compete on a level playing field and produce a crop that's healthier, affordable, and safer for the consumer. Helena: I think the devil's advocate, or maybe the [chuckles] consumer advocates, would say they maybe agree with the assessment of it's unfair that US producers have to follow rules that the same tomato grower in Mexico doesn't have to follow. I think their prescription would be to make the tomato grower in Mexico follow the same rules if they want [chuckles] to sell- Theodore: If they want to [crosstalk] our market. Yes. Helena: -into the US. Kat: I think that's a whole other-- Helena: That's a whole other topic. Kat: That's a whole other topic. [chuckles] Helena: I do want to make sure we get to the FRESH Act, which most people know if they're not following the name of it, it's known as sort of the preemption bill in Washington. Right now there is a big push from food industry interests to try to make sense of this growing patchwork we have of state laws and rules, or looming potential labelling, not just additive bans, but labelling requirements. What I'm hearing from folks in the food industry is this just is unworkable. They want a national uniform solution. On the other hand, you have a lot of these MAHA advocates who are furious about the idea that a bill would preempt or knock down state laws that they've worked really hard to put on the books that do things like ban additives or ban certain things from school meals. There's this real tension over this idea. What is the status of the FRESH Act? I believe you have a discussion draft that came out in, I'm trying to remember what month that was, in the spring sometime? You haven't formally introduced it. There's been a lot of drama around this, a lot of chatter. What is the status of that bill? Are you planning to introduce it? What is the outlook there? Kat: It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. There's been this relationship between the Ag world, the production side, and the consumer side in MAHA. I really do believe that the two can coexist. Our intention in putting forward a discussion draft of how do you wrap your arms around this issue that we're seeing, where every state's coming up with new standards and different regulatory frameworks, and not even just states, like I said, but you have municipalities that are coming out and saying, "Oh, no, no. If you're going to sell here," from a national standpoint, especially the companies, did you just drop your plant? Helena: No, no. It was my toddler or my six-year-old's glue stick. Just ignore him. I'm trying to get the sun out of my eyes. [laughs] Kat: It's like blinding you. Helena: Yes. [chuckles] Theodore: It's a home-spun operation here at Podcast, but let's not stop you. Please, continue. Helena: No, no, no. Go for it. Kat: I'm here for it. I'm here for it. Helena: Go for it. [crosstalk] Kat: This is real life. Helena: Yes, it is. It is. Kat: No. The intention of putting forward a discussion draft is to bring people to the table. I think that that's the most important thing that we could do is bring people in. Let's have the discussions. Let's have the debates. Having this back and forth on X, where one side is attacking it, and then there's hit pieces being thrown out there. That does nothing to move the needle in actually making our food safer and modernizing a woefully outdated FDA. I think any mom, especially a young mom like me, I'm in the aisle at the store reading the ingredients on the back of a formula can, like, "What the hell is this?" Then I look at another product, and I'm like, "What the hell is this?" Then I start going down the rabbit holes of why is it that it's different in this state versus that state, and travelling all over the place as we do, you're getting different products. There's zero consistency. It's very frustrating. The thing that I continue to come back to is this conversation should be rooted in a level set of the preemption, if you want to call it that, but the standard should be the floor, not the ceiling. If a state wants to go even above and beyond and be like, "Hey, we're going to test at this level, and we're going to do this, and we're going to do that." Absolutely. I believe in states' rights. I believe in local control, and I want them to have the ability to go above and beyond, but the fact that there is no standard is crazy. What we are seeing, particularly in the infant formula space, is that it is such a delicate operation. We only have four or five major lines that can produce the formula. When one of them goes down, as we've seen in recent years, all of a sudden, we're looking at waivers to import from abroad, and people say, "Oh, well, they're more stringent over there." Well, what has happened is now because that is continuing to flood in the market, you're seeing massive quantities of foreign formula coming into the United States, and it's going to push out our domestic production. That domestic production is actually what is keeping WIC afloat for so many moms that need that as a resource. Helena: It's also a national security issue to not have- Kat: Also a national security issue. Helena: -domestic production. Theodore: Helena, I know you're going to want to follow up, but let's just make sure we have enough time. I don't want to talk about the Farm Bill. You good on time? Helena: Just to follow up on the FRESH Act. I think you were saying this idea that there should be a national standard that's the floor, and then states can go above and beyond that. I think a lot of people would agree with that, like consumer advocates and MAHA folks for sure. The FRESH Act, as I understand it, explicitly blocks states from going above and beyond what would be the federal standards. It makes the federal standard the standard. I think that the concerns I'm hearing from consumer advocates is they're like, "FDA is so slow." Congress is slow. It's really hard for them to believe, I guess, that FDA will be really aggressive. I'm hearing the same thing from my peers. I have a two-year-old and a six-year-old. They want more oversight. They want more understanding. They want more clarity. Right now the states are really doing their own thing, and California has mandated contaminant testing for baby food. We do not have that for baby food nationally, but it's becoming the de facto-- Kat: Which is insane, by the way. [laughs] Helena: I think there's a lot of holes in what FDA requires and doesn't. I think everyone would agree with that. Even folks in the infant formula space would say they'd like a consistent regulatory regime. That's the argument I'm hearing is that the FRESH Act, because it would explicitly block states from having higher standards, that seems to be what they're so upset about. Kat: That's the beauty of the discussion draft is that nothing's written in stone. What I have seen in terms of people criticizing the bill is they are willing to put money into hit pieces, but then they don't want to come in and have the conversation. Helena: They're not having meetings with you? Kat: No. I've met with the baby formula manufacturers. I've met with-- Helena: Do they support the bill, the baby formula manufacturers? Kat: Yes, because they want a standard. Then, it is critically important for them to actually have that floor. That's been a really interesting conversation that we've been having with the baby formula manufacturers. Helena: Sorry to interrupt you. Are you going to formally introduce it? Are you planning to anytime soon? What's the plan? Kat: Once we have it in a good place and all the people who want to be at the table are at the table. I would say that I appreciate that folks want to be able to go off and do their own thing, 100% get it, and that's why we have talked about it not being in the final draft, that it's the ceiling, or that it prohibits any additional action. Helena: I see. Kat: The notion that a kid in Gainesville is going to get a different product than a kid in Los Angeles is silly. That's absolutely silly. It's not consistent with us keeping a domestic supply secure for the long term. That's why I think just level-setting. Food security is national security. The more that we do to try to set up multiple different standards, not just 50 different standards, but multiple different standards beyond that, you're driving industry overseas where we have absolutely no control. It puts consumers in a very, very tough spot, which I think would even say I could point to areas where it's questionable on the food safety side, but then ultimately more expensive, especially when you start factoring in all the food miles that go into bringing food and products from abroad. Helena: We could talk about this all day. Ted, I do want to let you get to the Farm Bill. Congresswoman, I appreciate it. I can nerd out all day about this idea. Theodore: I want you both to nerd out. I do. I want to talk about the Farm Bill. Congresswoman, you've represented Florida's 3rd Congressional District since 2021. That means this is your first Farm Bill cycle as an elected official. Kat: Yes. Theodore: How's it going? You think you guys are going to get this done? Kat: This has been the most jacked-up process ever. [laughs] I'm just going to be candid. Theodore: All right. Helena: The wheels are coming off. The wheels are coming off the Farm Bill. Theodore: The Farm Bill used to be an example of bipartisanship in Congress for many, many years. What's your take on why it's changed so much? Why is this, as we say on Forked, forks and knives at each other? Kat: It's frustrating because Florida won. I'm the only representative for agriculture in the entire state of Florida, which is crazy because Florida is a massive ag state. Massive. 300 specialty crops. It's a multibillion-dollar industry. It's the number two driver of the state's economy. Florida is the third largest state in the union. It's a really, really contentious time. Our farmers, our ranchers, producers, generally, they're very frustrated because the can keeps getting kicked down the road. When you are in the industry of ag, you have to plan ahead. If you don't have certainty in the market, you have no idea where you can invest. It's everything from fertilizer prices. You're buying in a season. You're looking down ahead. I'll give you a good example. We just had a historic freeze in the state of Florida. What was so interesting is people are like, "Oh, my gosh. We just lost this season's crop. No, no, no." You lose a blueberry bush, a cane stalk for sugar, name whatever commodity. It takes years for those to get to maturity where they're actually producing a product. You lose them, and you're losing three to five years of production. We've had some really big challenges and not a lot of certainty coming out of Washington. The thing we have had is the heavy hand of government. We talked about regulations starting out. I've been out on operations. I'll just say watermelons, for example. My district is heavy in watermelon production. We had food regulations coming out saying that you couldn't store watermelons in cardboard boxes in packing houses, like, "Huh?" You talk to the inspectors, and they're like, "Well, it could be contaminated." I'm like, "You know that that's cellulose, which is a wood product, which is a natural occurring thing in nature called a tree, right?" Helena: Was that the state doing that or the feds? Kat: No. That was the federal government. Helena: I don't think I've seen any new food safety rules. Theodore: Beyond that, you're always getting a very large federal bureaucracy. You're going to have these kinds of absurdities, I think. [crosstalk] Kat: Yes, absurdities is correct. [chuckles] Theodore: I want to learn from you about the substantial differences that are dividing Republicans and Democrats. It's going to be very difficult to get a Farm Bill done without those two sides coming together. Kat: Oh, right out the gate, I think the biggest thing is the nutritional programs. People, for years, have talked about you have the nutritional programs, which consume about 80% to 83% of the total cost of the Farm Bill, and then you got about 6% conservation, and then the remainder goes to production agriculture. The tension exists, using a food analogy, of people taking off the shelf overcoming those that are putting food on the shelf. That is one of the things that I hear repeatedly in the district and across the state, across the country. We had over 100 different listening sessions for the Farm Bill. There's a lot of consternation about how much of the bill is going towards food programs. One of the things that I get frustrated with is it becomes the business of hunger rather than actually addressing the root cause of it. A good example is we brought in some of the food bank folks, and they were being asked, and I even asked, I said, "In order to use your licensing and your branding," and this is a national food bank organization, they charge royalties to local food banks. People who are raising money and trying to actually address a real issue, which is in every community across the country, which is hunger, they're having to pay royalties to a national organization just to use their stupid logo. That's absurd. That's insane. It does nothing to help people who are actually looking for help with food insecurity. It's stuff like that that drives us absolutely wild. That's where the tension exists. It's the nutritional programs versus the food production programs. Helena: I always say SNAP is the key to getting the Farm Bill done, and it's also the reason the Farm Bill [chuckles] is not getting done right now. It's having a lot of challenges. I don't know what the path is in the Senate, frankly. You guys were able to get it out of the House, which was, I think, an uphill battle. What I'm hearing from Democrats, Democrats are just furious that H.R. 1, the big reconciliation package, cut so much from SNAP. We've actually seen, I think, more than 5 million people drop from the program since those changes were enacted. They're just mad because they feel like all these changes were made outside the Farm Bill. These are policies they deeply disagree with that passed on a party-line vote. Now they're looking at the Farm Bill, and they're like, "We want to undo or at least delay some of these policies." I believe Florida is among the states that is facing potentially a lot of money to have to actually pay for some of the SNAP benefits if they don't get their error rates down. There's this looming, almost like sense of doom over some states about how much money they're going to have to pay for SNAP. I think Democrats, they're just angry about how all this has gone down. It seems like there's just so much bad blood over SNAP in particular, and there seems to be a lot less disagreement over the rest of the Farm Bill, as you outlined it. Kat: I wouldn't say that it's not headline-grabbing in terms of the production or the conservation titles when it comes to differences between Republicans and Democrats. It really does rest in the nutritional titles. A lot of that has to do with the explosion of SNAP that was done with the stroke of a pen during the COVID era. I think it went up about $250 billion. Helena: Oh, you're talking about the Thrifty Food Plan? Kat: Yes. Helena: The increase and the cost. Kat: Yes, it was a complete workaround of Congress. Helena: That made House Republicans very mad and Senate Republicans. Kat: Yes. Again, Article I authority, the people's house completely sidelined on that but left to pay for it, and no pay-fors. I know that there was a lot of consternation. I was in the room for those fights around tightening up work requirements. I don't think it's unreasonable for a grown adult who is completely able-bodied, no disabilities with no dependents, if you are accepting government assistance, it's not unreasonable to say, "Hey, for 18.5 hours a week, you should be looking for a job, have a job, volunteer, or be in some sort of education program." That, in my mind, is not disrespectful in any way, or I've heard it called a million different things, but what is so frustrating to me as someone who's worked my entire life, we have allowed a program to go completely unfettered. The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has an entire department dedicated to SNAP fraud. That is an issue that is completely rife that I feel like my colleagues on the other side never want to talk about. They never want to talk about the fraud in the program, which really underscores how political it's become. If we don't address that fraud, it hurts everybody in the program. The people who genuinely need it, the people who are really, really dependent on help, they get hurt. That's why I can't understand why we collectively, as Americans, don't want to go after the actual real fraud that's happening in this space. I remember when Governor DeSantis made it so that you couldn't use your SNAP and EBT card in strip clubs, at liquor stores, and all these other places, and people, their hair was on fire. I'm like, "Can we just have an adult conversation about this? This is just getting absurd." You talked about the error rates. It's the federal government that is footing the bill for this, but it's the states that administer the program. It is absolutely wild that you have error rates in double digits, 12 and above, and the states refuse to give that information back, share that data with USDA. There's no accountability for it as taxpayers. Helena: There's about to be a huge amount of [crosstalk] Kat: There's about to be. [chuckles] Helena: In states, I think both Republican and Democrat governors are really panicked about this because, I think you're correct. I think everyone agrees the error rates are too high. Kat: They're way too high. Helena: This is, by the way, administrative errors. This is different than fraud. I think everyone also agrees that fraud should be prosecuted and should not be part of the program. Kat: Listen to an Ag hearing, and you will hear that there's no fraud in the programs, according to some of my colleagues. Helena: I do think it is true that the general politics and discussion around SNAP has become so toxic that you really can't talk about anything. Kat: Correct. Helena: I do think that is true, but fraud is hopefully prosecuted. It is illegal. [chuckles] It's just illegal. There's criminal networks that are constantly being disrupted over that. I think if you just look at how much the states are panicking over what to do about these error rates. I think everyone agrees the error rates are too high. They want to bring them down, but what I'm hearing from states is they just don't have enough time to do it by next year. They're worried that states are going to drop out of the program. I know we are out of time, and I don't want to keep you two. Theodore: That's what I was going to say. Kat: No, no. I do want to respond to that. Helena: That's what I'm hearing. Theodore: I just wanted to add to that, though. I think the Democrat belief is that the error rate discussion is really a backdoor to slashing SNAP and making dramatic cuts to it. The distrust is coming from both sides, and that is the perception, right? That what looks like a reasonable debate about error rates is actually a frontal attack on the program itself. Kat: I would say that states saying that they can't comply is bullshit. If they wanted to, they could. It's just that they choose not to because they also choose not to comply with a number of other things. A good example is one of the things we have looked at doing, we've run some economic impact studies on, is this idea of farmers feeding Americans. It's a bit of a hat tip to the next generation of producers, FFA. This is language we put together and work to incorporate in the Farm Bill. It basically said that if an American taxpayer is paying for it, then it should be an American product that is consumed, so fruits, vegetables, meat, cheese, dairy products, things that are grown and produced here in the United States should be the priority when it comes to nutritional programs. Now, I have heard, "Oh, well, what about, you know? Helena: Bananas. Kat: Yes. Of course. There's common sense that we can use and say, "Well, sure, there's going to be things that are out of season and whatnot." Look at the food miles, just from an environmental standpoint, the food miles of how much the emissions are when they're getting trucked up through Mexico and across the border, or they're shipped in via container, and the chemicals when you're gassing the bananas and the tomatoes and all those things. We had asked a couple of folks to do some economic impact studies of how much of the food that is paid for using SNAP is foreign. I went to the USDA, and they said, "We can't give you that data." I said, "Why can't you give me that data?" They said, "Because the states refuse to give us the information about their users." The states can spare me the bullshit line of them worrying about people getting kicked off programs. They just simply don't want to share information because they will then be exposed for having holes in their program. It's crazy. Helena: I wonder though, would Florida give you that data? That'd be interesting. I looked it up because I couldn't remember what Florida is. Florida's error rate for 2025 was 12.97%. That's down from 15. Kat: Still too high. Still too high. Helena: I think everyone agrees that's too high, yes, but that means that Florida would be on the hook for almost a billion dollars in SNAP benefit costs starting in 2028. What is going to happen there? Kat: I've actually had conversations with soon-to-be Governor Donalds about this, and the whole mindset around this needs to shift. It needs to be, what are we doing to actually help people get back on their feet and address the issue of food insecurity? I think that government has a consistent problem at all levels of we're going to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away. If we were able to solve problems by throwing money at anything, we would have solved hunger, wars. We would have world peace, and everything would be hunky dory, but it's clear that that is not working. We have systems in place that are really designed to trap people rather than help people. This is beyond just the food insecurity conversation. This is all forms of social programs that help people with homelessness, or light bills, utilities. There was consternation about HR1 and some of the broadband that was getting paid for out of the USDA, stuff like that. The whole system is really designed to keep you trapped in the system. You become dependent on it. The minute that you start making a little bit too much money or you have too much money saved, you get kicked off these programs. There's no bridge. Helena: Well, there's a benefits cliff. Actually, that is a place where actually, I think there could be real bipartisan work done, but the politics are so toxic that no one will even go there. I do want to go back to this. What is going to happen in Florida when they have a billion dollars to pay in SNAP benefits? I think in Florida you have to balance the budget. Are they not worried about this because SNAP supplements millions of households' grocery budgets, and groceries are really expensive right now? I think anti-hunger groups are so, so worried about the millions of families that have already dropped from SNAP. It has put more stress on the food banks. What do you think is going to happen in Florida? Are they going to pull out of the program because they can't afford the billion dollars? Are retailers talking to you about this? What do you think, nuts and bolts, is going to happen? I think what you're describing is a very long-held traditional Republican viewpoint of SNAP that I've heard illustrated many, many times as I've covered this program, but getting down to the nuts and bolts of what's going to happen. States are going to be on the hook if they don't get these error rates down. I don't think Florida is going to have their error rate that quickly. What's going to happen? There's millions of consumers in the state of Florida that depend on that program. Kat: It'll be interesting to see, one, how this gets conferenced out of the House and Senate version of the Farm Bill. Helena: If the Senate can get it out. [chuckles] The Senate Ag Committee voted it out. We talked about this recently on Forked. They had to wheel Mitch McConnell in, and he's obviously very much recovering. He is in a rough state, and they had to wheel him in to pass it. That was really a sign of how incredibly partisan this has become. The last Senate Farm Bill passed 20 to 1 out of the Senate Ag Committee, 2018. Kat: We could do an entire episode just on the Senate and the failures of the Senate. Helena: I know we've already gone overtime, so I want to be mindful, but yes, it might not get out of the Senate, but going back to your point, you think maybe in conference, if it gets out of the Senate between the House and the Senate, you think maybe some of this would be changed? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Kat: I don't know if it would be changed. There may be a delay. Helena: To give states more time. Kat: To give states more time. Again, this is all dependent on conversations that are happening between our governors, and we're coming up on elections, so there'll be new governors that we'll be having to have these conversations with, but I don't think that you would see a product out that didn't give any sort of extension without reforms in place. Like I said, this system is just fundamentally broken, and doing the same thing is not changing the outcome. It's the very definition of insanity. I think in this place, there needs to be a reckoning of we're not addressing food insecurity with the program that we have in place. We have to do something different that's actually going to address the root cause and make sure that nobody is going hungry, that no one's trapped in this system either. States need to take responsibility. They want to have autonomy that comes with responsibility. Going back to the issue that we started out talking about, which was setting a regulatory standard. They want that autonomy to do that, but then they want the federal government to pay for it. Helena: I was going to say a lot of governors want to bring in as much federal money as they can. This is a well-known thing. Theodore: To me, that's a standoff. You're at a standoff with the people of Florida wondering who's going to give first. What do you say to the people of Florida who are on SNAP today, who might be off it in the future if this work can't get done? What do you tell them? What are you working on for their behalf? Kat: Obviously the farm bill is the key part of that. The farm bill getting across the finish line is going to be the thing that really helps us get onto solid footing. The other thing is there's a lot of middlemen in between. We were talking about how some of these entities will charge royalties, and they'll make it so you get in between a farmer, a producer, and a food bank. There's so many new regulations that they've put up, and these walls where it's like, "No, you got to go through this to go to here." It's almost like a broker situation. Remove the middlemen, basically allow it where communities can step up and help rather than having to do this "Mother, may I" through these big entities or these big government agencies. That's going to help address it. I really do feel like the starting point is going to be getting this Farm Bill across the finish line because there were so many good reforms that we passed out of the house that will go a long way in addressing food insecurity and also keep our producers in a place where they're solvent as well. I think that that's the starting point, but there needs to be an adult conversation had. If we continue down this path of sniping at each other on social media and dropping hit pieces and trying to tank things, that doesn't do anything but hurt consumers and constituents in the end. I don't think that's good for anybody. Helena: I don't know that the farm bill's going to get done. I think this environment you're describing, it feels like a very difficult [crosstalk] Kat: Ted, She's not very optimistic. Are you the cynic in the room? Theodore: No, no, no. Helena: No, I'm not cynic. Theodore: I am most definitely the cynic in the room. Kat: [laughs] Helena: I think it's hard to see. Theodore: I agree with Helena. I agree with Helena. Helena: I think it's just hard to see because I've covered a couple farm bills, and it has gotten more partisan and more dysfunctional and more toxic every year that lawmakers have worked on this. Kat: Which really sucks. Helena: I used to cover the Ag committees, and everyone would say, "Oh, the Ag committee, that's that place where Republicans and Democrats still work together." [chuckles] They were like, "Oh, that's so nice over there." The rest of these committees are not doing that anymore. It feels like one of the last frontiers where that's broken down. Kat: It's like Darren Soto, Democrat, Central Florida, he and I served on the committee together for Ag, and he actually got kicked off of Ag, and they put, I think, a freshman from California. I remember asking him, because he and I were always united in the front of, " We're going to protect Florida Ag, we're going to look out for our consumers and our folks in the state." He came to me, and he's all like, "Yes, they kicked me off because they wanted a Californian on there to fight about food stamps." I'm like, "We have to have a moment of, "Guys, we aren't Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. No one gives a shit if you're a Republican or a Democrat if you're hungry. No one gives a shit if you're a Republican or a Democrat and you're trying to produce a crop and keep your family operation going." We have to get beyond this. We have to, have to, have to. It starts with having the uncomfortable conversations instead of just resorting to the clickbait. Honestly, that's why I'm grateful that you guys are doing this because it's important to have these long-form conversations. Helena: I will say you're getting at something that is something I hear from Republicans and Democrats and academics and lawyers and lobbyists and staff and everyone, which is that Congress in general just needs to reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government. It's a broader constitutional problem or challenge, I guess. I think a lot of this partisan breakdown is fueling that giving up the power to the executive. There is so much there. We should have you back. We can just talk about congressional dynamics. Theodore: We would love to have you back because I never even got to talk to you about H-2A, which is something that I really wanted to speak to you about. Helena: Well, if you have time, we just [crosstalk] Kat: Such a broken system. Helena: I want to make sure. Let's talk about H-2A. Do you have a few more minutes? I know we blew through our initial time. Do you have? Kat: I don't. My team has literally been texting me. Helena: I know. They're like, "Get off." [chuckles] Kat: I keep getting the little notifications. Theodore: That's okay. We'll have you back. We really love to have you back. Helena: We'll have you back. Kat: No, I'll be happy to come back. Totally broken system. Helena: Do you want to do good vibes really quick? Mine's really quick. My good vibe is I learned that there are at least 20 corn mazes that are in ode to Dolly Parton across the US. I have not been to one, but I would love to go to one. That is, I think, a very nice tribute to a legend. I think we should all smile about it. That's my good vibe. Theodore: We're all good in a Dolly world. I will seed my time to you, Congresswoman. You can do your good vibe because I'd love to. Kat: I had one at the beginning, and then, again, my postpartum brain has whoop. Helena: Dude, you lose part of your brain. Kat: Yes. It's real. Helena: Maybe permanently. Sorry. [laughs] Kat: I had one at the beginning, but then I was just thinking about this as you were talking about corn mazes and how I want to get my daughter, who's 13 months out, to be around all the festivities. We have honey bees, and so she's going to be a little bumblebee for Halloween, and Matt and I will be in our beekeeping outfits. Helena: That's amazing. Wait, you actually have honeybees at your home? Kat: Oh, yes. Helena: Oh. Kat: Yes. We have chickens and bees. [ Helena: Wow. A garden. You've got a garden. You've got chickens. Kat: No, I don't have a green thumb at all. Helena: I don't have time to plant. Kat: I could kill an artificial plant. [laughs] Helena: No plants, just chickens. Okay. All right. Kat: Living things, animals, insects, those are the things I can keep alive and take care of. I will say, for good vibes, I will say one of the most bipartisan things that's happening right now in Congress is saving the bees. Helena: Really? Kat: Good vibes around protecting the honeybees. I think that's something that we can all smile about. Helena: All right. We will have you back. I've got about 10 more questions. [laughs] Kat: Oh, God. Terrifying. Theodore: I just want to thank you both for coming on, having this great discussion. Helena, before we go, maybe you could just say very briefly a little bit about your newsletter and let everybody know about that. Helena: If you're not reading Food Fix, go to foodfix.co and get on the list. I cover food policy every week. It comes out on Friday. You can sign up for free. You should get it. All right. Thank you all. Theodore: Thank you very, very much. Kat: Hey, appreciate y'all. Helena: Thank you. Apologies to your staff. Theodore: Forked is a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Our executive producers are me, Theodore Ross, and Tom Laskawy. Our sound engineer is Cody Nelson. Our producer is Milla Douer. Our hosts are Helena Bottemiller Evich and me, Theodore Ross. To find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent nonprofit reporting, go to www.thefern.org.