PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1947, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 88
(House of Representatives - June 19, 2013)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H3770-H3786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1947, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE 
                 REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 271

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) to provide for the 
     reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of 
     the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and 
     for other purposes. No further general debate shall be in 
     order.
       Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendments recommended by the 
     Committees on Agriculture and the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-14, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may 
     be withdrawn by its proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Agriculture or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Agriculture or their designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included 
     in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 271.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of 
that same Act. House Resolution 271 states:


[[Page H3771]]


       All points of order against amendments printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en 
     bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.

  Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this 
rule may not be considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I do thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  I would first like to voice my support for the gentleman's particular 
amendment, actually, that he has before us--and will later on today--
that restores the unfair SNAP cuts. I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment, for his courage and for his very, very good idea of 
restoring those cuts when it comes to the underlying bill.
  Later today, I will offer an amendment to ensure farmers and rural 
small businesses have continued access to a critical tool to pursue 
investments in energy technologies and to meet their energy needs in an 
affordable and sustainable way.
  Currently, the Rural Energy for America Program supports farmers and 
rural small businesses in pursuing sustainable and value-added energy 
project investments, including wind power, biofuels, solar, or 
anaerobic digestion. These projects put people to work, they create 
entrepreneurial opportunities, and they have created new value-added 
opportunities for our farmers, for rural small businesses, and for our 
communities.
  I have heard from Iowans about the importance of this energy and 
economic development tool, and my amendment ensures farmers and rural 
businesses have continued access to it.
  I am strongly opposed to the changes made in the underlying bill, 
which weaken essential energy initiatives that create jobs and boost 
our economy. Because of these initiatives, thousands of jobs have been 
created in rural communities in recent years. In Iowa alone, over 1,600 
rural energy projects were initiated between 2003 and 2012, mainly 
stemming from farm bill energy programs.
  My amendment stresses the importance of farm bill energy programs to 
job creation and our rural economies, and allows one of our best 
resources--our farmers--to play a critical role in our domestic energy 
production, and I urge support for it. As I said at the outset, I also 
urge support for the amendment of my colleague from Massachusetts to 
restore the SNAP cuts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The question really before us today, Mr. Speaker, is 
plain and simple, and that is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 
271?
  I have great respect not only for the gentleman from Iowa but for the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. Yesterday, we sat through a very, very 
long committee hearing in which we considered over 200 amendments that 
were presented to the Rules Committee.
  I believe that what we have done with the rule that is in reference 
and is being questioned here on the floor is not only a very fair and 
bipartisan approach, but we took this actually from the Ag Committee, 
from the gentleman from Minnesota--the ranking member--and the chairman 
of the committee, from Iowa, both of whom have not only extensive farm 
backgrounds but also extensive service here in the House, both as 
chairmen of the Agriculture Committee, to the people of the United 
States.
  The bill was brought to the Rules Committee on a bipartisan basis. We 
talked about the amendments that the committee felt were worthy. We 
worked extensively with the committee and with other committees of 
jurisdiction. We had Member after Member come to the Rules Committee in 
a fair and open process. We deliberated. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts knows that he, in some sense, got some satisfaction with 
how the process worked.
  So, today, what we are here for is, yes, to talk about the 
amendments--some that were made in order and some which changed 
policy--but the essence of this is: Are we going to put a point of 
order against the bill? I think that the resolution waives all points 
of order against amendments printed in the Rules Committee Report, yes, 
and the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  I think this is simply an opportunity for my friends to come to the 
floor in order to allow for more discussion and time--and I respect 
that. I respect that the gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong 
feelings as a member of the Agriculture Committee and as a senior 
member of the Rules Committee, and I respect also those Members of the 
Democratic Caucus who have strong feelings about some changes that are 
taking place.
  I admire my colleagues. I disagree. I do not believe in any way that 
there should be any point of order against the bill. I think it's open. 
I think it's fair. I think it's inclusive. I think it includes a wide-
ranging group of ideas and thoughts that are directly germane to the 
appropriateness of the Agriculture Committee and other committees that 
have jurisdiction. I think the Rules Committee did an awesome job. I 
think we did this in a fair and open process. I think our product is 
good.

                              {time}  1240

  How would I characterize it? I think this is a fair rule that made 
103 amendments from both sides of the aisle with 53 Democratic 
amendments and 50 Republican amendments in order. There were a number 
of bipartisan amendments. It's a fair rule that comes from a good 
process.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I encourage us to keep moving.
  I thank the gentleman and respect the gentleman, and he knows this. 
We have been dear friends for many years on this committee. I know he 
wants more time, and I respect that.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration 
of the resolution if necessary, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Texas.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  (Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me 
these couple of minutes.
  I would hope that we would listen to the point of order that's been 
raised by Mr. McGovern. For one thing, this bill criminalizes poverty. 
People with felony records won't be allowed to get food stamps. There 
will be work requirements in order to get food stamps.
  These kinds of amendments and additions that we're going to see in 
this bill really add to the fallacious arguments that we have heard 
about the gargantuan cuts that are made to the SNAP program: that SNAP 
is run inefficiently, that these cuts won't hurt anyone, that these 
cuts don't serve the most vulnerable.
  Let me just reiterate the facts:
  SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable populations, 
primarily serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest 
communities, people who cannot work, people who don't have felony 
records;
  In my own State of Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include 
children, 15.4 percent include the very elderly, 21.7 percent include a 
disabled person. 84.3 percent of those receiving SNAP in my State are 
children, elderly, and disabled;
  Nationwide, 76 percent of SNAP households are composed of those who 
are children, seniors, or disabled persons;

[[Page H3772]]

  There is a rate of 68.7 percent of SNAP households that have a gross 
income at or below 100 percent of the poverty level.
  Let me just say going forward that as soon as this bill is enacted, 
as soon as we take away the categorical eligibility, 200,000 children 
will lose free lunch.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1947. Why?
  850,000 needy households would see their SNAP benefits cut by an 
average $90 per month. That's real food that these families will no 
longer afford to be able to put on the table. Last time I checked, the 
prices at the grocery store were not going down and wages were not 
going up!
  2 million individuals would lose their eligibility entirely.
  And just in time for the new school year in the fall, 200,000 low-
income kids who are eligible and are currently enrolled in the school 
meals programs will be disenrolled because of the changes in this bill.
  These are kids who we designed and create the school meals program to 
serve. And we are tossing them out for what reason . . . Mr. Speaker 
this just doesn't make sense.
  The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education that helps 
SNAP households maximize the value of the meager SNAP benefit by 
teaching them how to shop and cook nutritious food on a budget.
  The average SNAP benefit in Wisconsin is just $1.29 per person per 
meal, hardly enough to afford a nutritious diet.
  This all comes on top of the reduction in SNAP benefits that all SNAP 
households will experience later this year when the ARRA increase 
expires.
  On November 1, the average family of 3 on SNAP will lose $20-25 in 
monthly benefits.
  That may not sound like much to you, but that's the equivalent of a 
gallon of low-fat milk $3.79, a box of corn flakes $2.99, and a half 
dozen bananas $1.80; a loaf of wheat bread $1.79 and some deli ham 
$2.49; and a box of spaghetti $1.00, sauce $2.89, and some ground beef 
$6.99 total $23.74.' In other words, that's several days' worth of food 
for a struggling family.
  There is a myth going on that these changes will not really hurt 
people or that those being dislodged aren't low-income, do not have 
real and significant food needs that are not being met, and will be 
easily able to make up any gaps in access to food created by these 
changes as if they have secret Swiss bank accounts available.
  Listen to the stories from my district . . .
  How ridiculous. The people on SNAP are the poorest, most vulnerable, 
(kids, seniors, disabled).
  My colleagues seem to be astonished about why in a middle of the 
Great recession SNAP rolls would have grown. Why, when food insecurity 
in our country is at record highs, we should see a surge in Americans 
seeking the safety net protections of this program.
  Food insecurity is high. Nationally 50 million Americans live in 
households that struggle to put food on the table. In Wisconsin, there 
are 744,410 food insecure individuals, including 270,150 children.
  An Institute of Medicine report released earlier this year found that 
the SNAP allotment is inadequate to improve food security and access to 
a nutritious diet and needs to be updated
  Many Americans remain out of work. Those who are lucky enough to be 
back at work may be working for lower wages than before the recession.
  SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable, primarily 
serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest households. 
In Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include children, 15.4 
percent include elderly, and 21.7 percent include a disabled person. 
Nationally, 76 percent of SNAP households included a child, senior, or 
disabled person.
  I hear a lot about making sure SNAP goes to those who ``truly need 
it.'' Perhaps we need a reminder about just how poor SNAP participants 
really are. In Wisconsin, 68.7 percent of SNAP households have gross 
income at or below 100 percent of the poverty line $19,530 for family 
of 3 in 2013.
  I will remind you that federal law sets a maximum for gross income of 
130 percent of the federal poverty line. seven out of ten in the 
Wisconsin fall well below that threshold and I know the story is the 
same throughout our country.
  The families on SNAP are in real need. No wonder that 90 percent of 
SNAP benefits are used by the 21st day of the month.
  This myth that SNAP benefits are not going to those in need is dead 
wrong and dangerous.
  Cuts to SNAP would only increase demand on already over-strapped 
charitable food providers. An increase in TEFAP commodities as provided 
in the bill is critical to our nation's food banks and hunger-relief 
charities but it won't come close to meeting the needs created by the 
SNAP cuts in the bill.
  A need that even these generous and kind hearted groups know they 
cannot come close to meeting. No wonder they almost unanimously oppose 
the SNAP cuts in this bill.
  Charity groups alone cannot feed everyone who's hungry.
  Food benefits provided by charity groups in 2011 totaled 
approximately $4.1 billion according to Bread for the world.
  These groups supplement the work that the federal government is doing 
to combat hunger. They cannot replace it but the bill would throw 
millions more of hungry families their way nonetheless.
  The Harford Institute for Religion and Research estimates that there 
are 350,000 religious congregations in the U.S. and each would have to 
spend approximately $50,000 every year for the next ten years to feed 
those who would lose benefits or face reduced benefits under the 
Republican Budget Resolution approved in the House last year.
  As the recession took hold in our country, SNAP was not the only 
safety net that stood in the gap to help combat growing hunger across 
America. Our nation's food banks also saw a 46 percent increase in 
clients served during the recession. Those needs have not abated and 
will only get worse if this Farm bill passes in its current form.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unbalanced bill which seems to 
provides a safety net for everyone else but the most vulnerable and 
hungry in our country.

                 PERSONAL SNAP STORIES FROM THE DISTRICT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            SNAP is      Cutting my SNAP
             Name                Age    important to me    would mean:
                                           because:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earline......................      63  It allows me to   That I won't be
                                        eat on a fixed    able to eat
                                        income.           nutritious
                                                          meals
Michelle.....................      36  So I can feed my  We won't eat!
                                        family.
Moria........................      26  My income is not  I would not
                                        enough to         have the
                                        support my        proper funds
                                        children with     to provide
                                        food.             food for my
                                                          children
Debbie.......................      33  Because it is
                                        hard to buy
                                        food. I don't
                                        get enough cash
                                        to buy food.
Leiela.......................          Don't have
                                        enough money to
                                        pay rent and
                                        food..
Jesele.......................      18  Don't have        We don't eat.
                                        enough money to
                                        pay for food
                                        for me and my
                                        son.
Babette......................      50  We are a one      If FoodShare is
                                        income family!    cut, I might
                                        Just my social    as well die. I
                                        security.         would not be
                                        Without           able to feed
                                        FoodShare me      my family, and
                                        and my family     that would
                                        would die. I      make me feel
                                        already can't     useless and
                                        afford my         less than
                                        household bills   human; down
                                        if I had to pay   right
                                        all the bills     degrading.
                                        and food I
                                        would be out--
                                        lights, gas,
                                        toiletries.
Jessica......................      25  It helps me       It would make
                                        provide for my    it harder on
                                        children. I       me as a single
                                        have 7 children   mother, not
                                        and even though   only will I
                                        I work 2 jobs I   have to worry
                                        still need        about food,
                                        assistance with   but then
                                        food and other    shelter for my
                                        bills.            children and
                                                          more hours at
                                                          work and
                                                          that's more
                                                          time I'm not
                                                          able to spend
                                                          with them.
Solomon......................      20  Some people are   people like me
                                        less fortunate    would starve
                                        and need the      on the streets
                                        benefits.
Temera.......................      18  It is important   I would be
                                        to me because     homeless and
                                        I'm homeless      hungry with NO
                                        and this is the   type of help.
                                        ONLY thing that
                                        feeds me and
                                        gets me by.
Felicia......................      38  It's a lot of     It will be a
                                        people out here   lot of
                                        that does work    children
                                        and they don't    without food
                                        make enough to    to eat, I
                                        buy food. They    work, but I
                                        need food         can't even get
                                        stamps.           any stamps.
Anchea.......................      27  Because at times  A lot because
                                        like this when    it is very
                                        my hours are      important to
                                        being cut I       the community
                                        might only make   we all live
                                        enough for my     in.
                                        child to eat
                                        and just supply
                                        a roof over her
                                        head.
Rayshanda....................      21  That is how I     That I would
                                        provide my        have to pay
                                        groceries and     rent and light
                                        my job money is   bills so all
                                        for bills.        my personal
                                                          money would be
                                                          gone. I need
                                                          stamps--how
                                                          would we eat?
Brooks.......................      43  Because           Taking away
                                        FoodShare         nutritional
                                        allows me to      food items,
                                        provide           such as fruits
                                        nutritional       and vegetables
                                        food for my       that would be
                                        children,         otherwise
                                        instead of        easily
                                        junkfood.         obtainable.
Katie........................      27  I am able to      My children and
                                        feed my           I would not be
                                        children. I am    able to eat
                                        using this        healthily.
                                        program as a      With our SNAP
                                        stepping stone    we eat very
                                        to where I want   healthy and
                                        to be. I just     without it
                                        graduated         would mean
                                        college and am    having to cut
                                        looking for a     back and buy
                                        full time job     cheap
                                        to where I can    processed
                                        actually          fatty foods.
                                        provide for my
                                        children on my
                                        own.
Khinh........................      20  FoodShare is      It's not going
                                        important to me   to be enough
                                        because it is     for me to take
                                        enough for me     care of my
                                        to take care of   kid. And I
                                        my kid. I am      just make a
                                        having twins      little bit of
                                        and the income    income every
                                        I make is not     month.
                                        enough for me
                                        to take care of
                                        them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ella is 57 and has been sick for a while. Her doctor put her on a 
strict diet of Ensure, her limited income and medical bills make it 
extremely hard for her to afford the drink. She applied for FoodShare 
and was able to buy what she needed to stay healthy.
  Harry--retired lawyer who's practice went under during the recession. 
He is too young for Social Security benefits and his disability ran 
out. His $200 worth of FoodShare has helped him greatly.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct. There is an 
amendment that was presented at the Rules Committee that has been made 
in order that essentially does what the gentlewoman says, and she'll 
have a

[[Page H3773]]

chance to vote for it or against it. What it says is the amendment ends 
eligibility of food stamps for those convicted who are rapists, 
pedophiles, and murderers.
  So the gentlewoman and every Member of this body today will have a 
chance to say on record that it's okay if you're a convicted rapist, 
pedophile, or murderer, that it's okay for you to be eligible for food 
stamps in a program that does compete against mothers and children who, 
in these difficult times, you're seeing the Agriculture Committee try 
and set priorities about who should receive this government assistance.
  This amendment has not been accepted yet, but every Member of this 
body will be able to help prioritize; and the amendment that the 
gentlewoman speaks of is about whether we will let rapists, pedophiles, 
and murderers, who are convicted felons, continue to receive food 
stamps. The gentlewoman is right. And today she will get her chance to 
help us prioritize these government programs about who should be 
receiving food stamps in America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  (Mr. HORSFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and his leadership for 18 years on 
fighting for the needs of SNAP assistance for our most vulnerable 
citizens.
  I rise and stand with Mr. McGovern against this procedural rule and 
in support of the underlying amendment that Mr. McGovern, myself, and 
other Members have. This amendment will prevent cuts to the SNAP 
funding program.
  The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 
includes $20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. That will come on 
top of an expiration of a benefits boost from the Recovery Act of 2009.
  SNAP provides food assistance to approximately 46 million Americans 
in need, and it is estimated that at least 353,000 Nevadans will feel 
the impact of the upcoming double whammy of SNAP cuts from the FARRM 
Bill and the expiration of the Recovery Act boost.
  The bottom line is that the SNAP program is our Nation's most 
important antihunger program. It kept 4.7 million people out of poverty 
in 2011, including 2.1 million children.
  I had a community conference call with my constituents and families 
in my district who count on SNAP. Many of them live in food deserts. 
The benefits they receive right now aren't enough for a healthy meal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Yet we are talking about cutting these benefits even 
further while we continue subsidies to big industries that are well-
off. Those priorities are backwards.
  For the mother in my district who is expecting another child and who 
counts on SNAP, for the disabled family that stands in line for hours 
at the food bank, and for the elderly who rely on SNAP to get the food 
that they need, for everyone who made their voice heard by calling my 
office, I refuse to accept that we should cut $20.5 billion in vital 
food assistance programs, and I will continue to work with Mr. McGovern 
and my colleagues until we can restore these funds.
  Today's rule will allow for a number of amendments to be considered. 
I urge all of my colleagues to support an amendment offered by Mr. 
McGovern, myself, and other members. Our amendment will prevent cuts to 
SNAP funding.
  The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 
includes $20.5 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (or SNAP). That will come on top of an expiration of a benefits 
boost from the Recovery Act in 2009.
  Without the Recovery Act's boost, SNAP benefits will average about 
$1.40 per person per meal. If the Farm Bill passes the House as it is 
currently written, the average benefit may drop even lower.
  SNAP provides food assistance to approximately 46 million Americans 
in need and it is estimated that at least 353,000 Nevadans will feel 
the impact of the upcoming double whammy of SNAP cuts from the Farm 
Bill and expiration of the Recovery Act boost.
  The bottom line is that SNAP is our nation's most important anti-
hunger program. It kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, 
including 2.1 million children. And SNAP has cut the number of children 
living in extreme poverty in half.
  I had a community conference call with families in my district who 
count on SNAP. They live in food deserts. The benefits they receive 
right now are not enough for a healthy meal. And yet, we are talking 
about cutting these benefits even further while we continue subsidies 
to industries that are well-off. Those priorities are backwards.
  So for the mother in my district who is expecting another child who 
counts on this program, for the family that stands in line for hours at 
the food bank, and for elderly who rely on SNAP to get the food they 
need, for everyone who made their voice heard by calling my office, I 
refuse to accept that we should cut $20.5 billion in vital food 
assistance.
  Extra points: According to the USDA's Economic Research Service: Each 
$1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm 
production, and 3,300 farm jobs; every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also 
creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobs; an additional $5 of SNAP benefits 
generates $9 in total economic activity.
  These programs are not handouts. They are a hand up. And they help 
stimulate the economy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman for coming down to the floor, and I want 
to respond to the gentleman that what this bill is about is trying to 
make decisions about what we're going to do in difficult times.
  There are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed as a result 
of the policies that President Obama has placed on this country. 
Millions of people cannot find work today. There are millions of people 
across this country who are denied opportunities because the job market 
out there is not growing. We're seeing rules and regulations. What is 
known as ObamaCare is causing employers to back away from hiring 
people. There is the President's inability to make a decision about a 
simple, most publicized and most looked-at pipeline that would employ 
thousands of people in this country and us use energy from our friends.
  The President's inability to lead is what is causing this country to 
have massive unemployment and a GDP rate of about 1.5 percent. It is a 
nightmare for people.
  So I do understand that we have those in our midst who are in 
trouble. I don't think this bill is ever aimed at, and we shouldn't try 
and say that it would be aimed at, the disabled or mothers with 
children. That's not what we're trying to accomplish here.
  What we're trying to accomplish is to end the eligibility of food 
stamps for rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, those that compete 
against needy families. That's why you see members of the Democratic 
Party coming down here today saying we're going to take it away from 
other people. No. Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

                              {time}  1250

  Furthermore, under the current law, people who receive as little as 
$1 in energy benefits, $1 in State benefits, automatically qualify for 
SNAP payments.
  This legislation that we're talking about today says if you're going 
to give away a Federal benefit, the State has to have some skin in the 
game. You can't just give away something that comes from somewhere 
else. This legislation closes the costly loopholes that have been out 
there. And without reform, you're going to continue to see dead people, 
illegal immigrants, lottery winners, and others who are still eligible 
for SNAP. That is what we are doing as we reform this bill today. We 
are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do to save 
the system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
support the point of order that the gentleman has raised against the 
rule, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising that 
point of order.

[[Page H3774]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the 
proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the 
underlying farm bill.
  In the wealthiest nation in human history, it is simply 
unconscionable that every American cannot afford life's basic 
necessities. SNAP helps millions of Americans living in poverty put 
food on the table. Eighty percent of the households receiving SNAP earn 
below the Federal poverty level, making it a vital form of assistance 
for million of working families.
  Yesterday, I proudly joined a group of my Democratic colleagues in 
taking the SNAP challenge, a commitment to living on no more than $4.50 
in daily food costs. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress should 
experience what it's like to subsist on such a paltry sum and should 
understand how the decisions we make affect the lives of hardworking 
Americans.
  When we take food off the plates of hungry children, we have a moral 
obligation to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. Under 
this bill, 2 million people will lose their eligibility, and many more 
will see reduced nutritional assistance.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I encourage Members to vote 
against these unnecessary and harmful cuts. We can do better. We can 
put that funding back into this farm bill and make it a bill that we 
can all support.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to 
support the point of order and in strong opposition to the bill that 
would cut more than $20 billion from critical nutrition programs, 
especially those that serve our Nation's most vulnerable children. In 
my home State of Rhode Island, it is estimated that nearly 67,000 
children rely on support from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP.
  The bill before us today would devastate funding that these and 
millions of children and families all across our country depend on each 
and every day. Because of the way this funding is structured, it would 
be especially devastating for States like mine, where families are 
struggling in a difficult economy, and where reductions in LIHEAP would 
be a grave hardship in long, cold New England winters.
  In the next couple of days, we will consider a wide range of 
amendments. Some, like one offered by my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), of which I am a cosponsor, would restore 
this critical funding for nutrition programs. Others would impose 
additional burdens on families already struggling to get back.
  The actions we take in this Chamber and the bills we enact into law 
should reflect our values as a country. We should not take actions that 
will make hunger worse in America, and this bill will do that.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these drastic cuts to nutrition 
programs and support the McGovern amendment so that we can continue to 
help improve the lives of millions of families and children across our 
Nation. America has always stood for the idea that we look after each 
other. We take care of the least fortunate among us. And most 
importantly, we protect our most treasured asset, the children of 
America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he 
has any further speakers or if he believes that we have now gotten to 
the end of this opportunity?
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And I believe I have the right to close. Is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is correct.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Let me thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak in 
support of an amendment that I and dozens and dozens of other Members 
have authored to repeal the SNAP cuts, to repeal the $20.5 billion 
worth of cuts in SNAP that will result in 2 million people losing the 
benefit, and hundreds of thousands of children losing a free breakfast 
or lunch at school. That cut is too much. It is too harsh. It is a deal 
breaker for many of us when it comes to the farm bill.
  What we should be about in this House of Representatives is to 
improve the quality of life for people, lift people up, not put people 
down, and these cuts put people down. We can do much better.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and look forward 
to more debate on this.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for furthering his feelings that he wants to talk about 
this. It is true, there will be people dropped off the rolls. We're 
having to make decisions based upon money. There's a vote today--it has 
not been decided--whether rapists, pedophiles, or murderers will be 
eligible. Also, whether we will have people have to qualify on their 
own as opposed to some other consideration maybe that a State would 
put. And we're going to take off those who are lottery winners, illegal 
aliens, and people quite honestly who should have the money to pay for 
these things. That's what we're doing today. So in order to allow the 
House to continue its scheduled business, which we're trying to do 
today, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration 
of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the 
Democratic side for not only their vigorous support for the things that 
they believe in today on this important bill but also for their 
consideration, participation, and bipartisanship yesterday as the Rules 
Committee considered this important bill.
  I believe it is important what we are doing in the House. I think 
doing our work on a bipartisan basis should draw the attention of the 
President of the United States, who has said he will veto this bill, 
veto the bill before we even see what it looks like. I think that we 
should understand that what we are trying to do is work together. So, 
for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts, my very dear friend, Mr. 
McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we've already had a lot of discussion 
about this awesome farm bill that comes to us today. H. Res. 271 
provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1947. This 
rule provides for discussion and opportunities for Members of the 
minority and majority, both Republicans and Democrats who represent 
700,000 people back home, to come together with their thoughts and 
ideas about how to make our farm policies and the things which are 
included in this bill even better, sustainable, and moving forward so 
that we can know that we have done our job.
  This week, 230 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. The 
rule before us today provides for consideration of 103 of those 
amendments, 50 Republican and 53 Democrat or bipartisan amendments.

                              {time}  1300

  Many of the amendments submitted were duplicative, some violated the 
rules of the House, and several were nongermane. Given the universe of 
the amendments the committee received, I believe that this rule allows 
the House to debate each and every important

[[Page H3775]]

issue contained in the bill and provides this body with an opportunity 
to work its will.
  Despite the large number of amendments submitted, I believe the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 1947, is a strong and meaningful statement 
and measure that provides our Nation with agriculture and nutrition 
policy necessary to meet the needs of this country.
  And I want to commend, in particular, the young chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Collin Peterson), who 
have worked together over the years, not just the time when Mr. 
Peterson served as chairman of the committee, but also throughout the 
years that Mr. Lucas has worked in a bipartisan basis together, the 
committee, to work on agriculture policy.
  Their hard work over the past several years has led us to the point 
where we are today. Hard work, working together, thinking, talking 
about the policy that would be good for the country--that's where we 
are today.
  We follow that up with an opportunity to make sure, on a bipartisan 
basis, that I work together with my colleague, my colleagues at the 
Rules Committee. Notwithstanding Ms. Slaughter was busy on the floor a 
lot of the time yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) sat in, heard the amendments with the rest of the Rules 
Committee. We worked together, staffs, to try and make as many 
amendments in order that would create an opportunity to follow the 
leadership set by Mr. Peterson and Chairman Lucas.
  So this year's FARRM Bill reforms our Nation's agriculture programs 
to provide American farmers with innovative risk management tools. It 
reforms our Nation's supplemental nutrition programs for the first time 
in nearly two decades, and it invests in meaningful conservation 
programs to ensure that future generations of Americans benefit from 
the same resources that we do today.
  The bottom line is the top soil, that top soil that is in America, 
which is the greatest in the world, enables our farmers and ranchers to 
produce goods and services, food that serves the entire world. And I am 
proud of supporting those people who live a way of life in a rural 
area. I know them well, and I respect the hard work and what they do to 
make our country stronger and better.
  Impressively, H.R. 1947 accomplishes all of this, while making 
difficult decisions on saving over $40 billion over the life of the 
bill. This legislation is common sense. This legislation is bipartisan.
  This legislation allows us, through an amendment process, to make 
many tough and difficult decisions based upon representation of this 
House of Representatives about issues because we're re-looking at the 
entire FARRM Bill.
  Most of all, I hope it's fiscally responsible for those. And we offer 
solutions, solutions to not only consumers, but also solutions to 
farmers about how we are going to keep their products and services, 
farmers and ranchers, families, rural communities and consumers all in 
a balance to where we know that, through the leadership of this House 
of Representatives, that we have done our job.
  That is why we're here today. We're here to take on tough decisions. 
We're here to make this FARRM Bill better, and I am proud of the 
product that we present today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I support the 
underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Sessions and 
thanking the staff on the Rules Committee, both the majority and the 
minority, for their hard work in trying to put this rule together.
  I want to commend Chairman Sessions, in particular, I think, for 
making an honest attempt of trying to include as many amendments as 
possible. There are over 100 amendments that have been made in order, 
and I appreciate the fact that so many amendments were made in order, 
and many Democratic amendments were made in order.
  Unfortunately, some important amendments were not made in order, 
which means that those of us on this side of the aisle, I think, will 
have to oppose this rule. And I certainly also want to make it clear 
that I oppose the underlying bill as it is now written.
  But before I explain why I oppose the FARRM Bill, let me begin also 
by commending Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson and their 
staffs for all their hard work in crafting this legislation. It is no 
easy task, and they have done their best to thread a very small needle.
  I'm honored to be a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I want 
to support a farm bill. I believe this Nation needs a farm bill. And, 
indeed, this bill contains a number of good things.
  I'm pleased that the bill includes an amendment that I offered in 
committee to close a loophole in Federal animal-fighting laws that 
allow spectators at animal fights to avoid prosecution.
  I support the dairy program in this bill and believe that it would be 
good for dairy farmers in the Northeast, who are such an important part 
of our economy.
  But I cannot and I will not support this FARRM Bill as it is 
currently written. I cannot support a bill that cuts the SNAP program 
by $20.5 billion.
  I cannot support a bill that will force 2 million Americans to lose 
their benefits.
  I cannot support a bill that throws over 200,000 American children 
off the free school breakfast and lunch program. In short, I cannot 
support a bill that will make hunger in America even worse than it 
already is.
  Right now, as we speak, as we gather here, there are 50 million 
hungry Americans; 17 million of them are children. Many of them work 
but do not earn enough to make ends meet. All of us, every single one 
of us in this Chamber, should be ashamed by those numbers.
  Food is not a luxury; it is a basic necessity. But there isn't a 
single congressional district in America that is hunger-free.
  Ending hunger in America used to be a bipartisan issue. To my 
Republican friends, I say, remember the work of people like Bob Dole 
and Bill Emerson, who dedicated themselves to this issue. Be proud of 
that legacy; don't dismantle it.
  And to my fellow Democrats, I say, if we do not stand for helping the 
poor and the hungry, then what are we doing here?
  There are all sorts of nice little deals in this bill for all sorts 
of people. Peanut growers get a nice deal; cotton growers get a nice 
deal. Even sushi rice producers get a really nice deal for some reason.
  But poor people in America, hungry people, get a raw deal. It is a 
rotten thing to do to cut SNAP by $20.5 billion. It's a lousy thing to 
do to throw 2 million people off this program.
  I will have an amendment later in this process to restore these cuts 
to SNAP in a way that not only reduces subsidies to big agribusiness, 
but actually reduces the deficit by an additional $12 million beyond 
the base bill. So I would urge any of my colleagues who are concerned 
about deficit reduction to support my amendment.
  You know, we hear a lot of rhetoric about waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the SNAP program even though SNAP has an incredibly low error rate. I 
promise you that if our defense programs had the same error rate as 
SNAP, we would save billions and billions and billions of dollars.
  I'm going to have more to say about my amendment during its 
consideration, but I would urge my colleagues to take a look at it and 
support it.
  I'd also like to take a moment to ask my colleagues to support the 
amendment offered by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce and 
Ranking Member Engel to provide modest, but important, reforms to our 
international food aid programs. This amendment will enable more people 
to benefit from our scarce U.S. dollars, while ensuring that U.S. 
commodity producers and shippers remain actively engaged in alleviating 
hunger around the world.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the rule makes in order 
several,

[[Page H3776]]

quite frankly, mean-spirited amendments that do nothing but demonize 
the poor and make their lives even more difficult. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose those amendments, oppose this rule, and oppose the underlying 
bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can certify that at no time during this process have 
we vilified any poor people. We're here to help them. The Republican 
Party cares very much about families and children, moms who are trying 
to make a go of it.
  We're the ones that are up here trying to lower taxes on everybody. 
We're the ones that are trying to make sure we've got jobs for people. 
We're the ones that are making sure that we're trying to take 
pedophiles and rapists and murderers off the rolls of government 
assistance so that it would serve those who need it the most.
  We're trying to help prioritize and save this system. That is what 
Republicans are trying to do.
  We would never vilify those that are disabled, or who are seniors, or 
who are men and women who richly deserve the opportunity for the 
government to help them.

                              {time}  1310

  But likewise, we believe that those who are able-bodied, those who 
really should be getting up during the day and trying to go find work 
do not take government assistance.
  We are very concerned about the rights of seniors, about the rights 
of women, particularly women that have children, and about children and 
about the disabled. I work very extensively as a Republican with other 
Republicans and with Democrats on a bipartisan basis to make sure that 
we're looking at those needs of disabled people. So, I think it would 
be unfair to say, Well, this bill is aimed to vilify the people that 
we're intending to help, and that's why we are here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is from 
Gainesville, Florida, and was a large animal vet. He understands a lot, 
not just about agronomics, but also about the men and women who take 
care of this country in agriculture, people who spend their lives 
there, people who have to take care of their animals and, day in and 
day out, the needs that it takes to make sure that we have the best 
farms and ranches in America, animals who are safe and consumers that 
get a good deal.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Yoho.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  This bill has been a long time coming. With over 3 years of reviewing 
every single USDA program, 11 audit hearings, and 2 markups, we've 
finally brought a farm bill to the house floor--and I need to remind 
everybody, with a lot of bipartisan support. This is hugely important 
for the stability and security of our Nation's food supply; and without 
that supply, a nation like ours cannot truly call itself secure.
  I've worked in agriculture all my life, since I was 16 years of age, 
and I've seen the regulations that stood in the way of farmers and 
ranchers, and I've seen the regulations that have made sure our food 
supply is the safest in the world.
  This legislation cuts through the red tape by eliminating and 
consolidating over 100 programs, while bolstering farm risk management 
programs so that our farmers can keep feeding America during the tough 
times.
  I see a lot of theatrics and drama when we hear people talk about 50 
million starving people in this country. I disagree with that. I think 
there are 330 million starving people at least three times a day. We 
call it breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But as far as 300 million 
nutritionally deprived people, I would beg to differ. The SNAP program 
does not take one calorie off the plate of anyone who qualifies for the 
program.
  Let me repeat that. The SNAP program does not take one calory off the 
plate of those who qualify for the program. We simply close the 
loophole that allows States to sign people up into the program without 
the proper qualifications.
  To have a secure nation, we must have a secure food source. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for the rule and for passing the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would just say to the gentleman in response, the Congressional 
Budget Office--not me, but the Congressional Budget Office--says that 
these cuts would throw 2 million people off of SNAP and over 200,000 
kids off the free breakfast and lunch program. I assure you that people 
will lose food over these cuts. This is not something we should do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member McGovern and commend him for his 
work on this important rule.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, but, frankly, I'm relieved to 
finally debate a farm bill in this country. This past year and a half 
has been marked by far too much uncertainty in our agriculture industry 
as a result of Republican leaders here refusing to even consider a farm 
bill in the last Congress. That has hurt economic growth in this 
country from coast to coast.
  American agriculture is responsible for 1 in 12 jobs in our country, 
and it's vital to give confidence to the market and to give certainty 
to our agricultural enterprises that we move a bill forward. Thank 
goodness the other body did it and we are compelled to do it here.
  But this bill cuts $20.5 billion in nutrition assistance that will 
cut over 2 million low-income people, starting with senior citizens in 
this country and with children who won't get school meals anymore. I 
don't know what the gentleman from Texas is talking about. I invited 
him to Ohio before, and I hope he accepts my invitation. Simply, these 
cuts are unconscionable.
  Shockingly, the bill also has zero funding for the energy title. When 
American energy security is at stake and gas prices are hovering around 
$4 a gallon, to not invest in that is simply backwards thinking.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, and hopefully we can 
improve the bill as it comes to the floor for a final vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a 
leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying 
bill. It includes severe, immoral cuts to the food stamp program, 
slashing so deeply into nutrition support for hungry families at a time 
of great need all across this country. It is cruel, it is unnecessary, 
and it's an abdication of our responsibilities to the American people.
  Over the past 30 years of policies aimed at debt and deficit 
reduction, the key programs that help the most vulnerable among us to 
get by have always been protected from deep cuts. Recent examples: 
Simpson-Bowles. This has been a bipartisan tradition for decades. But 
this FARRM Bill destroys that tradition.
  This bill slashes food stamps by more than $20 billion. It hurts 
millions of Americans in our economy. It will force up to 2 million 
Americans to go hungry. It kicks roughly 210,000 children from the 
school lunch program, and it changes the relationship between the food 
stamp program and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which 
takes benefits away from seniors and from our families.
  Let's make it clear: you cannot get food stamps unless you qualify 
for them. There is nothing automatic about it. Food stamps are our 
country's most important effort to deal with hunger here at home. 
Forty-seven million Americans are helped--half of them kids--and they 
are proven to curb hunger and improve low-income children's health, 
growth, and development. They have one of the lowest error rates of any 
government program. It's 3.8 percent.
  I tell my colleague from Texas: Do you want to find money in this 
budget? Go to the crop insurance program, which is ripping off billions 
of dollars from U.S. taxpayers. That's where the money is, not where 
the program is to feed our kids.
  Food stamps are good for the economy. They get resources into the 
hands of families who will spend them right away. And, most 
importantly, they are the right thing to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H3777]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me quote the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

       We must form a ``circle of protection'' around programs 
     that serve the poor and vulnerable in our Nation and 
     throughout the world.

  Harry Truman said:

       Nothing is more important in our national life than the 
     welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first 
     in attaining this welfare.

  Let's pursue a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule. Vote against the underlying bill. Balancing the 
budget on the backs of hungry Americans, especially children, does not 
reflect the values of this great Nation, and it abdicates our moral 
responsibility in this Chamber.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming down and speaking. She was at 
the Rules Committee yesterday and really sat for a long period of time 
in order to have her ideas taken up by the Rules Committee. As she 
knows, she's going to get a vote on what she spoke about today. It's 
not in there yet. She'll have a chance. This body will have a chance to 
determine whether we're going to go one direction or the other.
  What drives the behavior of all this is very interesting. We're 
trying to work with, on a high level, something that's going to happen 
again soon in this next cycle starting at the end of September, and it 
is called sequestration--again, President Obama's idea of 
sequestration--which will cut $85 billion more across the board, and 
the entire government is struggling with how we're going to make these 
changes.
  Our GDP is at less than 1 percent. Twenty-five million people are 
unemployed and underemployed. We're working with the policies of the 
Democratic Party that are bankrupting this country.
  There are people who are hurting. There are people who need jobs, who 
need food, need to take care of their families, and need to take care 
of paying their student loans. This House of Representatives is on the 
mark of saying how we should solve each and every one of these 
problems.

                              {time}  1320

  They essentially go back to when Republicans had control of the House 
of Representatives, the United States Senate and the Presidency. For 60 
straight months there was sustained, ongoing economic growth. Oh, my 
gosh, that was under George Bush. Well, that's right. President Bush 
and Republicans helped this country to achieve a doubling of GDP, of 
moving our country forward.
  But there's also another model of success out there, and it was 
called President Clinton, who came and worked with the House of 
Representatives, who took Republican ideas, who took the ideas which we 
put and merged them with his own--probably called them his own--but 
moved this country forward. Instead, today we have leadership of our 
country that says no, no, no.
  We've passed bipartisan legislation--cybersecurity. What's the 
President's answer? No. We've come today with bipartisan legislation 
from two stalwarts, men who have served this great Nation in the 
Agriculture Committee for years of service, bringing them together with 
the best ideas to try and formulate a policy.
  Today, there will be examples of people who can control the destiny 
of these ideas. One is about trying to take rapists, pedophiles, and 
murderers off the rolls. Another that says we are not going to allow 
those that have won the lottery to be able to continue receiving food 
stamps. That's how this bipartisan bill is being crafted and worked 
together. And every Member of this body will have a chance to vote on 
the final direction that we go through amendments that were made in 
order by the Rules Committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in 
SNAP are not about taking rapists, pedophiles, and murderers off the 
rolls. This is about going after poor people. And it is curious that we 
have an amendment to go after rapists, pedophiles, and murderers who 
are not SNAP, but those who receive crop insurance, not those who 
receive agricultural subsidies. I mean, it's incredible what's going on 
here.
  I'd also say to my colleague that it was the Republicans' idea to 
have sequestration; it was Republicans in this House that passed 
sequestration. But I'm going to give you credit that at least SNAP was 
exempted; it was exempted from sequestration and from Simpson-Bowles 
because it was thought that to balance the budget on the backs of poor 
people who have nothing was a rotten and cruel thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. 
Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I rise in opposition to the 
rule and the bill because I am absolutely appalled by the proposed cuts 
to the SNAP program in the FARRM Bill.
  Now, I know how important the FARRM Bill is to American ranchers and 
farmers and to New Mexico ranchers and farmers. I want to vote for the 
bill, but I cannot support it if these disastrous cuts remain.
  For the past week, I've joined dozens of my colleagues in the SNAP 
challenge, to take a walk in the shoes of the over 442,000 New 
Mexicans--half of whom are children--who have to eat on less than $4.50 
every day, to show just how devastating any cuts to the food program 
would be. Nearly one in three children in New Mexico is chronically 
hungry. It's the worst in the Nation. It's unconscionable, and these 
cuts make it worse.
  In addition to the SNAP cuts, this bill also cuts funding for 
nutrition education programs that teach SNAP recipients how to stretch 
their dollars further and feed their families nutritious food.
  New Mexico's farmers, ranchers, and consumers need and deserve a farm 
bill. But this cut, this bill is morally wrong, it's cruel, and it's 
reckless--harming children, seniors, the disabled, and veterans in the 
process.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Forty-five years ago, in a now famous film, Edward R. 
Murrow, for CBS, produced a program called ``Hunger in America.'' It 
described 100,000 residents of San Antonio--mostly Latino--who were 
``hungry all the time'' and the indifference of some local leaders to 
their plight. This spring, with the inspirational leadership of Rod and 
Patti Radle, we re-watched that film, discussed the progress, and 
outlined the remaining challenges.
  In one west side ZIP code, we still have 40 percent of the population 
in poverty and over one-third relying on SNAP. We cannot snap our 
fingers and snap away that poverty. But if we make these cuts five 
times larger than what the United States Senate approved, we will snap 
away food security from many needy families--people like Daniela, who 
lost her job and relies on SNAP to feed her young daughter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. In San Antonio and Austin, a public-private partnership, 
across this Nation, involves responsible corporate citizens, like HEB, 
working together with local entities to see that there's food security. 
But without SNAP, they cannot do their job.
  This bill has very little to do with reform and everything to do with 
denying a vital lifeline to school children and to poor Americans 
across this country.
  Let us reject it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the young gentleman 
from Austin, Texas, that he'll have a chance to vote on this, and then 
we can make a determination. But it's pedophiles, murderers, rapists, 
those who should have enough money not to have government assistance, 
that's what we're trying to do here. And he'll have a chance to decide 
that today.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Taylorsville, Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of 
the Ag and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I 
will

[[Page H3778]]

say that my home town has no ``s,'' it's Taylorville. But, hey, Mr. 
Sessions has been there. So thank you very much for your time spent in 
that community and thank you very much for the time today.
  I rise today in steadfast support of H.R. 1947, the FARRM Bill. 
Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson, 
we have crafted a farm bill that provides 5 years of certainty, cuts 
$40 billion, closes loopholes in the SNAP program, and preserves crop 
insurance as the key risk management tool for our producers.
  Ag has been a bright spot for this economy. For every $1 billion in 
agricultural exports, it supports nearly 8,000 American jobs.
  The district I represent is home to ADM, the University of Illinois, 
the Farm Progress Show, GSI, and Kraft Foods. From the farm to the 
classroom to the table, agriculture is a crucial economic driver in the 
13th District of Illinois.
  I'd also like to quickly highlight two amendments I authored, which 
were included in the FARRM Bill. The first one would provide the 
agricultural community with a place at the table when the EPA considers 
regulations impacting agriculture. This is how we stop regulations from 
coming to the table that want to regulate milk spills like oil spills 
from the Exxon Valdez. They don't make sense, and the Department of 
Agriculture deserves a seat at the table to tell them that.
  I also had a bipartisan seed amendment that removes duplicative 
layers of EPA regulations at our ports to ensure that we don't face 
shortages of seeds in the Midwest.
  Lastly, I want to talk about another vital title to this bill. The 
area that I represent has the University of Illinois. And those of us 
who are fortunate enough to represent land grant universities know that 
they are the bedrock of agricultural research. With this FARRM Bill, we 
are reauthorizing university research and continuing the Agricultural 
and Food Research Initiative within the National Institute for Food and 
Agriculture.
  Research through AFRI benefits the entire world, and I'm proud of the 
research that the U of I has conducted through this program. Their 
cutting-edge research is aimed at improving food security, achieving 
more efficient crop production, and promoting animal health through 
livestock genome sequencing.
  We have an opportunity to move the FARRM Bill forward this week and 
avoid the uncertainty of year-long extensions that reform nothing and 
spend more money.
  This FARRM Bill is well thought out, contains critical reforms, and 
benefits all Americans. Vote ``yes'' on this FARRM Bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I appreciate his 
courtesies in the Rules Committee yesterday, but I have to object to 
the way he is kind of characterizing those people who are on SNAP. 
Demonizing and stereotyping people who are on SNAP as somehow rapists, 
pedophiles, and murderers is just plain wrong. It's just wrong. Please 
don't do that.

                              {time}  1330

  These are people who are law-abiding citizens, they are good people, 
and they've fallen on hard times. Millions and millions and millions of 
these people work for a living but they earn so little that they still 
qualify for SNAP. I have to interject that because these people don't 
deserve to be demonized, they deserve a helping hand.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert in the Record a 
letter to the New York delegation from Governor Andrew Cuomo opposing 
these cuts in the farm bill.

                                                State of New York,


                                            Executive Chamber,

                                        Albany, NY, June 13, 2013.
       New York Delegation: It is well known that the importance 
     of the Farm Bill goes beyond New York's agriculture industry 
     and conservation efforts. The Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program (SNAP), within the Nutrition Title, is a 
     program that helps struggling New York families put food on 
     their table. SNAP is one of the most effective anti-poverty 
     components of the nation's safety net. Approximately 3.1 
     million New Yorkers utilize SNAP to buy groceries. As the 
     Farm Bill moves toward enactment, I urge you to fight to 
     protect the integrity of SNAP, its current streamlined 
     administrative requirements and program benefit levels.
       Specifically, I urge you to maintain the successful ``Heat 
     and Eat'' state option. In New York, more than 300,000 
     households currently participate in the program. In New York, 
     when a SNAP household is also eligible for Low Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the State deems that 
     household eligible to have the Heating and Cooling Standard 
     Utility Allowance (HCSUA) used in their benefit calculation, 
     and usually results in a higher SNAP benefit for the 
     household. It is critical to maintain the ability to 
     predicate eligibility for the HCSUA on eligibility for and 
     anticipated receipt of the LIHEAP benefit. Both the House and 
     Senate bills restrict the states' ability by requiring SNAP 
     households to be in actual receipt of the LIHEAP benefit. If 
     the state option is restricted as written, these households 
     will see their benefits decrease by roughly $90 per month. 
     Congress should allow New York to continue this innovative 
     strategy to deliver benefits, which reduces administrative 
     costs, instead of increasing the administrative burden on the 
     State, which ultimately requires more resources.
       In addition, I urge you to preserve the Broad-Based 
     Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) option that is slated for 
     elimination in the House bill. Households which receive 
     benefits through the Temporary Assistances for Needy Families 
     (TANF) block grant, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or a 
     state-run low-income general assistance program are 
     categorically eligible for SNAP. Since 2000, New York has 
     been able to use BBCE to eliminate the duplicative and time-
     consuming requirement that households who already met 
     financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income 
     program go through another financial eligibility 
     determination in SNAP.
       Eliminating BBCE will force the state to revert back to 
     requiring a separate asset limit for SNAP, with a threshold 
     of $2,000 ($3,000 for elderly)--unchanged since 1986. This 
     outdated threshold will disqualify applicants even though 
     they meet the same extreme poverty requirements other safety 
     net programs. Many low-income New Yorkers, particularly the 
     elderly and working households, would no longer be eligible 
     for SNAP.
       These groups tend to have assets, such as a small savings 
     account which, though putting over the asset threshold, is 
     not a true indication of their poverty status. Eliminating 
     BBCE will result in the elderly and children in low-income 
     working families going without the food assistance upon which 
     they depend.
       Furthermore, BBCE is an example of good public policy that 
     has both streamlined administrative requirements and reduced 
     payment error rates to the lowest of any federal program. 
     Without BBCE, states would be forced to waste critical 
     resources in order to allocate staff time to duplicate 
     enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their 
     computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and 
     retraining staff.
       In addition to the above cuts, the House bill would cut $11 
     million in funding from the SNAP Employment and Training 
     program (E&T). The Senate bill would preserve the current $90 
     million funding level until FFY 2018, when it would cut the 
     funding by $10 million. New York serves more than 150,000 
     individuals through SNAP E&T, which provides sorely needed 
     job preparation and job placement services for SNAP 
     participants. This funding is the only available targeted 
     federal support to enable SNAP participants to engage in 
     these services, which ultimately provides a path to 
     employment, financial stability, and a reduction in SNAP 
     costs for federal government.
       The solution to lowering the cost of the SNAP program is 
     not reducing enrollment numbers by restricting eligibility 
     and cutting benefit levels. SNAP is a safety net program in 
     the truest sense of the word; there is no other more 
     fundamental human need than food. There is never a good time 
     to cut SNAP benefits or pass burdensome unfunded mandates, 
     but I respectfully suggest that doing so during a period of 
     economic insecurity, it would be especially harmful to our 
     most vulnerable citizens.
       SNAP's low payment error rate--3.8 percent--shows us that 
     benefits reach those who are truly struggling, and it is not 
     a program filled with individuals ``gaming'' the system as 
     many incorrectly proclaim. Cutting benefits and making the 
     program more restrictive may help lower deficits in the short 
     term, but it will prolong the struggle for the millions of 
     New Yorkers who still feel the impacts of the worst recession 
     since the Great Depression.
       A Farm Bill is critically important to New York's 
     recovering economy, but those still beaten down by the 
     recession should not be denied basic food assistance. As a 
     fellow New Yorker, I urge you to not support House and Senate 
     Farm Bill provisions that will decrease benefit levels and 
     limit future eligibility.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Andrew M. Cuomo,
                                                         Governor.

  At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me say, first of all, we used to have--or we have--in the part of 
the

[[Page H3779]]

city that I live in, a statement that says, ``Give us your poor, your 
hungry, your huddled masses yearning to be free.'' We have people here 
yearning for food.
  Now, I have heard my very good friend from Texas talk about rapists 
and murderers, et cetera, but the Congressional Budget Office, it talks 
about 200,000 children who will be cut off from the school program. 
That's not Democrats talking about it. It is the Congressional Budget 
Office that is talking about it, and we as a country should be focused 
on the least of these.
  I think you judge a country by how you take care of the poor. Here we 
have clear evidence from an impartial group of about 200,000 children 
and hundreds of thousands of elderly individuals who will go hungry if 
we cut this $20.5 billion. This is what this is all about.
  We talk about the future of America. Well, somebody within that 
200,000 children, who are hungry, who will not have the ability to 
learn because their stomachs will be crying out for some food, could be 
the person that could take us where we want to go as a Nation. But what 
are we doing? In the name of saving money, which we are not, we are 
turning our backs on these children, on the elderly who have worked 
hard, many of whom came in with the sign of giving us your young, your 
poor, and your hungry.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire about the time 
remaining on both sides, please, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York, who is a very dear friend of mine, spoke 
very eloquently about this bill.
  I will tell you that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
known as SNAP, is designed to ensure that the neediest Americans are 
able to help themselves with food for themselves and their families. I 
care very much about people who are disabled seniors and those who are 
having problems.
  I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Member who did not 
think that reforming this program is also the right thing to do. This 
program was reformed in the Agriculture Committee. That's the text that 
we are bringing here today--Republicans and Democrats together working 
together, looking at the problem, and trying to make sure that 
prioritization is done.
  They also recognize this: in the past decades, SNAP payments, 
otherwise known as food stamps, have increased by almost 300 percent; 
300 percent is non-sustainable. A 300 percent increase puts huge 
responsibilities on public policy.
  This is why Republicans have been offering ideas, and we continue to, 
about jobs and job growth. This is why Republicans see the terrible 
plight that the American family and the American people are having in 
trying to have jobs that are available in their hometown. And this goes 
to the responsibility of all elected officials, not just Members of 
Congress, but mayors and Governors and Senators and, Mr. Speaker, 
Presidents, people who are elected officials who need to understand 
that increasing food stamps by 300 percent over 10 years should be a 
national disgrace.
  We're not trying to take advantage of those who are on it. They're on 
it because they cannot find work, they cannot find an opportunity 
because of public policies that make work harder to find because of 
rules and regulations out of this body and the Federal Government that 
are creating circumstances on employers to where they don't go employ 
people. We've talked about this for years. We said when we got into 
ObamaCare, this will cause a tremendous loss of jobs. The CBO--we're 
talking about this organization CBO--predicted the same thing.
  Well, by golly, we can look ahead and see exactly where Europe is. 
Europe is going through what is a tragedy where young people cannot 
find jobs. It is an international disgrace. You see riots across 
Europe, and have.
  Mr. Speaker, we better be smart enough to recognize that we better 
reform our policies, not just in agriculture policies but economic 
policies; economic policies that help people, sure, to get an 
education, but then a thriving marketplace, not just through trade but 
also through policies of this country.
  Our leaders--Members of Congress, Governors, Vice Presidents, 
Presidents, and Senators--need to focus on this. We need jobs, we need 
job creation. We need the opportunity for every Member of Congress to 
understand how jobs are formulated, how jobs are then formulated, 
created, and then saved.
  We've got a group of people that are in Washington that I think fail 
to look at the ramifications of long-term unemployment to our country. 
They, I think, are more interested in what we are going to do for 
people who are having tough times.
  So I'm not here to vilify people. I'm here to say I suffer with you 
because I know them all over our country. I've seen them, not just in 
Taylorville, Illinois, but across this country.
  What we are doing here today is bigger than just SNAP. It's larger 
than just the agriculture bill. It is how are we going to create a 
public policy that we involve all elected officials to understand about 
jobs, job creation, rules and regulations, and that we do not follow 
Europe; that we admit that Europe is the problem, not the answer; that 
we go back to the American Dream, the formulation of hard work, the 
formulation of creation of jobs and, yes, I'll say it, even people 
making money so they can employ more people and give more wages.
  The free enterprise system, that's really the underpinning of what 
this whole argument is about today; a creation of a policy in this 
country that is about helping people that need help and about creating 
economic opportunity for a vast number of other people and making our 
country and the American Dream work. That's what the Republican Party 
is for. That's why we're here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points to some of the things the 
gentleman from Texas said.
  He talked about the increased numbers of people who are on SNAP. The 
reason why is that we've had a difficult economy. We've had the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. Lots of people lost work, and 
lots of people are underemployed right now, so that's why. The CBO 
tells us that, as we look to the future and as the economy gets better, 
the number of people on SNAP will go down. So this is there for people 
who have fallen on hard times. That's why the numbers have increased, 
and they're going to go down.
  The gentleman says that this bill somehow represents reform. This is 
not about reform. When you come up with reforms, we deliberate. In the 
Agriculture Committee, in the Subcommittee on Nutrition, do you know 
how many hearings there were on SNAP? Zero. None. In the full 
committee, do you know how many hearings there were on SNAP? Zero. 
None. Then the language appears in the bill that we have before us 
during a markup.
  If you really want reform, you have to listen to people, and you have 
to deliberate. That's what hearings are for. We have to reach out and 
figure out how to make this program better. I'm all for making this 
program better, but that's not what this is about, so let's not have 
anybody be under the misimpression that this is about reform.
  This really is about trying to find an offset to be able to pay for 
all of the other things and to try to use this to help kind of balance 
the budget. We're not going after the big agribusiness, and we're not 
going after crop insurance. What we're doing is going after poor 
people. They don't have super PACs, and they don't have big lobbyists 
down here, so there are no political repercussions. That's what this 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
leader on this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  I would like to just highlight a point that the gentleman just made 
that my friend from Texas and everyone understands, which is that, of 
course, SNAP payments increased during the recession. It is 
supplemental nutrition, and it's that supplemental nutrition assistance 
that kept people out of poverty.

[[Page H3780]]

  The majority ruled out of order my amendment to the FARRM Bill, which 
would ensure families relying on SNAP could skip fewer meals and buy 
healthier food. Contrary to my colleagues' claims, SNAP is not too 
generous, and processed food from the dollar store can't replace fresh 
fruits, fresh vegetables, and the protein needed in a healthy diet.
  So, as the Republican majority prepares to vote to kick 2 million 
Americans off of SNAP, let's remember what they are not voting for, 
what they are not voting for today and what they have not voted for on 
one single day in this Congress:
  The GOP is not voting for jobs; they are not voting to raise the 
minimum wage so that full-time workers can actually feed their kids 
without SNAP; they are not voting to invest in education so that 
children have a better shot at success; they are not voting to create 
new jobs by investing in new ports and new bridges and new roads. In 
short, my friends on the other side of the aisle are not voting to 
reduce poverty; they are not voting to reduce hunger; they are not 
voting to build an economy in which working families can get ahead and 
don't have to scrape by on SNAP benefits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DEUTCH. What's the Democratic plan for reducing SNAP spending? 
Create jobs, build the economy, and stop punishing poor people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. I wasn't able to attend my usual congressional Women's 
Bible Study this morning, but I am still feeling the command of 
scripture. So, today, as we begin the consideration of the House FARRM 
Bill--the FARRM Bill that takes $20 billion from the hungry in cuts to 
SNAP, $20 billion from the plates of fellow Americans who are 
struggling to feed themselves even with this meager benefit--I am 
holding in mind the words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew:

       Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the 
     least of these, you did not do for me.

  In my communities alone, 145,000 people rely on this benefit. Over 
half of them are children. This bill takes food from their mouths.
  I hope all of my colleagues will remember what that means and will 
join me in supporting the McGovern amendment, which will reverse these 
cuts, or else vote down this immoral bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that the House will be 
considering today as a result of amendments, ideas, that have come to 
the committee--some that are in the bill and some that are amendments 
against the bill. I'd like to, if I can, speak on one of those 
amendments at this time.
  This amendment is amendment No. 194, and it is offered by the 
gentleman who is the former chairman of the committee and who is now 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is cosponsored by a number of Members of 
this House, including the gentleman Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. 
Chris Collins of New York, Mr. Moran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Polis, Mr. 
Coffman, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Lee, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Issa, and me.
  The essence of what this is all about is that it would repeal the 
Dairy Market Stabilization Program. This program serves as a supply-
and-control mechanism which distorts the private markets through which 
government intervention takes place and which unnecessarily fixes 
prices. As a result, American families pay higher prices for milk 
products, and American dairy exports are unnecessarily limited.
  This amendment which I speak of, No. 194, known as the ``Goodlatte 
amendment,'' would replace the stabilization program with a voluntary 
margin insurance program, allowing producers to effectively manage 
their risks without unnecessary government intervention. It is 
government intervention that will simply raise prices for consumers.
  It's an important amendment, and it has drawn a lot of attention. I 
would like to stand up and offer my support since I will not be here 
probably for the discussion of the bill at the time that the amendment 
comes up. I lend my support because I think this is one of the most 
critical piece parts to putting the free market together with the 
opportunities for reducing cost, bettering the services and products 
that are available, and helping keep America in the export market to 
where we are more competitive in the world marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, free market 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter to the 
Congress from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, which opposes the 
cuts that are contained in the FARRM Bill.

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

                                         Boston, MA, May 30, 2013.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leaders Pelosi, Reid and 
     McConnell: As you continue your work on the 2013 Farm Bill, I 
     write to ask that you consider the importance of the 
     following priorities, which, while not an exhaustive list, 
     will help ensure that we continue to provide the most 
     vulnerable Americans with access to healthy and affordable 
     food, as well as strengthen our many diverse farms that are 
     integral to the Commonwealth.
       In Massachusetts, over 880,000 individuals are served by 
     the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 40 
     percent of who are children. SNAP helps lift families out of 
     poverty and works to bridge the gap so that struggling 
     Americans can put food on the table. I urge you to protect 
     the overall integrity of SNAP and refrain from restricting 
     eligibility, reducing benefits or funding for this critical 
     program. Specifically, I urge you to protect the highly 
     successful Heat and Eat state option. In Massachusetts over 
     125,000 households currently participate in this program and 
     if it were eliminated they would see a decrease of about $70 
     per month in their SNAP benefits. Eliminating or placing new 
     burdensome requirements and restrictions on this successful 
     state option will simply lead to increased food insecurity 
     for more of our most vulnerable residents.
       In addition, households receiving benefits through a 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant 
     are currently categorically eligible for SNAP. A proposal in 
     the House bill would restrict this categorical eligibility. 
     Many low-income individuals, particularly the elderly, would 
     no longer be eligible for SNAP. This population is already 
     under represented because they are either unaware they are 
     eligible for SNAP benefits or too proud to apply. This change 
     will result in many elders going without the food assistance 
     they need and deserve.
       I agree that program integrity is important for SNAP. Your 
     committees can emphasize the importance of program integrity 
     by increasing the percentage of administrative costs 
     reimbursed by the federal government for those states, such 
     as Massachusetts, that invest in efforts to improve program 
     integrity, such as in data sharing and mining software 
     designed to identify household composition, income, assets 
     and participation in other public assistance programs.
       As we continue to combat childhood obesity and the 
     increased risk of diabetes, we should do all we can to 
     promote and provide access to fresh fruits and vegetables for 
     our SNAP families. I therefore also urge you to authorize 
     appropriate funding to promote the acceptance of EBT in all 
     farmers' markets and other non-traditional produce vendors.
       Bay State farmers have averaged $490 million in cash 
     receipts and employ over 12,000 workers across hundreds of 
     thousands of acres of farmland in active production. In 
     Massachusetts, approximately 80 percent of our farms are 
     family-owned, making it all the more important to maintain an 
     inventory of farmland for future generations. For this 
     reason, I urge you to authorize robust funding for 
     conservation programs in the 2013 Farm Bill, including the 
     Farms and Ranchland Protection Program, which has helped the 
     Commonwealth preserve and protect nearly 14,000 acres of 
     farmland. I also urge you to provide adequate mandatory 
     funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
     which helps our farmers plan and implement conservation 
     practices to improve soil, water, plant and related 
     resources, as well as Conservation Innovation Grants, which 
     have directly assisted the implementation of over 100 farm 
     energy projects in Massachusetts, saving hundreds of 
     thousands of dollars.
       Further, programs funded under the Energy Title have been 
     critical to helping Massachusetts farmers and rural business 
     owners

[[Page H3781]]

     lower their energy bills through renewable energy 
     installments and energy efficiency improvements. I urge you 
     to authorize robust funding for the Rural Energy for America 
     Program to help our farms continue to make key energy 
     improvements. Since 2009, REAP has helped to fund 44 biomass, 
     solar, energy efficiency and wind projects in rural areas of 
     Massachusetts.
       The dairy industry generates over $50 million in cash 
     receipts from milk and other dairy product sales in 
     Massachusetts. Small dairy farms, which predominate in 
     Massachusetts, are particularly vulnerable to changes in the 
     dairy industry, such as the wide fluctuation in market prices 
     of milk and animal feed. At times, such market fluctuations 
     drive down the price of milk while simultaneously driving up 
     the cost of production, often resulting in low or negative 
     margins. To ensure that the dairy industry continues to 
     sustain and improve in Massachusetts, long term solutions 
     including supply management and margin protection are 
     crucial. I therefore support the inclusion of the Dairy 
     Production Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Market 
     Stabilization Program in the 2013 Farm Bill.
       Finally, Specialty Crops Block Grant funding is critical to 
     our agriculture economy, as specialty crops, including our 
     vibrant cranberry bogs, make up a majority of our food crops. 
     With over 400 growers producing approximately 35 percent of 
     the nation's cranberry supply, cranberries are the number one 
     food crop in Massachusetts and have a crop value of $104 
     million. I respectfully request that you authorize yearly 
     funding for the Specialty Crops Block Grant at the FY2013 $55 
     million level, at a minimum, to allow us to continue to 
     enhance the competitiveness of our specialty crops.
       As you continue your work on the Farm Bill, I urge you to 
     protect these important programs and vital benefits in order 
     to provide certainty and stability for low-income families, 
     our farmers and rural small businesses.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Deval L. Patrick,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
another leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman, who has been such a tremendous 
leader and head of our Hunger Caucus in the House of Representatives.
  Hunger in America--think of that. It ought to be a non sequitur. This 
is the richest country in the world, and yet one out of four of our 
children in this country is considered food insecure. That means that 
there are nights in this country when tens of thousands of children go 
to sleep hungry--American children.
  So, despite what the gentleman from Texas may say about the 
compassion for these children, 2 million people will be cut off of the 
food stamp program. Not all of them are rapists and murderers--they are 
children; they are senior citizens; they are people who go to work 
every day and yet can't afford to eat.
  I'm just finishing a week of living on the average food stamp, or 
SNAP, budget of $31.50 a week, $4.50 a day. You can spend $4.50 a day 
for one coffee at a Starbucks. It's not easy to live on that. That is 
the average food stamp benefit. It's just inconceivable to me that 
anyone has come to Congress with the idea that one would be willing to 
take food out of the mouths of hungry children--because it's not just 
the SNAP program. It's also school lunch programs and school breakfast 
programs, and 200,000 children are going to be cut off of those 
programs.

                              {time}  1350

  Are you kidding me? This is what we're going to do? This is what the 
majority is going to vote for to do in our country?
  These are working people who often have overcome a rough time. I 
talked to a woman on SNAP who said she saw it as a trampoline. She was 
able to get over a rough spot in her life for herself and her children 
through the SNAP program.
  Voting for this cut is immoral and wrong. We should be voting against 
this cut and against the FARRM Bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
more than 47 million Americans who rely on nutrition assistance and in 
strong opposition to the deep, unnecessary, and cruel cuts to these 
antihunger programs in the FARRM Bill.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is one of our Nation's 
most effective tools for lifting children, seniors, and families out of 
poverty and helping vulnerable Americans put food on their table each 
day. SNAP is a lifeline for low-income and working Americans and their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in defense of the most basic elements of 
America's safety net, that regardless of circumstance, no American 
should go hungry. These deep and drastic cuts mean that 2 million 
Americans risk falling through the safety net. Some 210,000 children 
may go hungry throughout the school day; an additional 850,000 
households will have less food on their tables. In my home State, 
nearly 1 million south Floridians don't know where their next meal will 
come from, and an astonishing 300,000 of them are children.
  It is inexcusable for this Congress to try to balance the budget on 
the backs of hungry children and their families. We know that savings 
derived from these cuts are short-lived.
  When Americans are food insecure, they are more likely to be anemic 
and have vitamin A and protein deficiencies, all of which lead to 
larger and more costly health issues, which we all pay for.
  When needy children go off to school on empty stomachs, we dim their 
horizons and cripple their potential.
  We are hurting our Nation's future through these severe burdens on 
needy families. This is not the way to find a balanced budget approach. 
Unfortunately, these cuts define the mindset of too many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  It is shameful for us to tell the American people that when they fall 
on tough times, they're on their own. With these cuts, we are limiting 
their potential, risking their health, and leaving our fellow Americans 
writhing with hunger. It is immoral. The authors of this bill should be 
ashamed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the $20 billion in cuts to nutrition 
programs in this bill. Support the McGovern amendment that would 
restore this critical funding, and oppose the rule and the FARRM Bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida. I do resemble that 
remark. I helped put this bill together, and I'm proud of it. We did it 
on a bipartisan basis.
  We also did it in a way to try and encourage a marketplace that will 
become more vibrant, that will ensure that farms and farmers and 
families and rural areas will not only survive tough times, but be able 
to see an advantage for working hard.
  People who are farmers and ranchers get up early and go to bed late. 
They represent the people of our country. They are the bedrock of not 
just men and women and their children who go serve in our military, but 
they're people who care about basic American values.
  In a larger sense, what this FARRM Bill is doing is trying to find a 
way in its place in all of the policy that we do to take care of people 
properly in this country who are the neediest, but to also ensure that 
we prioritize it.
  There are a lot of people that are my friends that are Democrats that 
talk about how this country is a rich and powerful country. Well, we're 
not as rich or as powerful as we used to be. In the last 5 years, we've 
diminished not only in stature and power, but in employment. We are 
falling behind because of policies in Washington, D.C.
  This bill is about empowering people that are in real live America. 
They call it flyover country. It's to help people--farmers, ranchers, 
communities--to deal with these issues. We're for job creation and job 
growth.
  The larger message is that we need jobs in this country. Let's not 
just take this as just an isolated incident to say just the FARRM Bill, 
but also the creation of jobs and job creation. There are 25 million 
people unemployed and underemployed. The GDP is less than 2 percent, 
where literally our country is not growing to sustain the newest 
generations of Americans who go to school, who go to college or to 
technical school, who come out and want to have a bright future. We are 
becoming more like Europe. We're becoming where we're beholden to a 
government that's bigger and more powerful and

[[Page H3782]]

one which drives entrepreneurship and individual responsibility out of 
the way. It's some of these policies that have led to a 300 percent 
increase in people who are on food stamps over the last 10 years.
  We're trying to deal with the problem. I think we're going to do it 
in a bipartisan way, and I have confidence this bill is on the right 
pathway. Some may oppose that, and some may not like the bill. I 
respect that. I respect the gentlewoman from Florida. But I do resemble 
that remark, and I think our product is good.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to the rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule.

  I'm very disappointed my amendment was not made in order, a solution 
that was both simple and responsible. It would restore desperately 
needed SNAP funding, protect the vital programs ranchers and growers 
rely on, and end welfare for Big Oil and responsibly reduce the 
deficit.
  By ending wasteful tax breaks for Big Oil, my amendment would help 
more than 68,000 families in Ventura County and families across the 
country struggling to keep food on the table without cutting programs 
that California ranchers and farmers depend on like agricultural 
research, disease and pest control, rural development, and 
conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me time this morning, and I thank everyone who has been on the floor to 
talk about the unconscionable and unthinkable cuts to SNAP benefits. 
This will have a devastating effect on my home State as it will across 
the country.
  I want to mention one other thing. Just over a week ago, Speaker 
Boehner promised a fair and open debate on the FARRM Bill and said:

       If you have ideas on how to make the bill better, bring 
     them forward. Let's have the debate and vote on them.

  Lots of people brought ideas forward, ideas that would help farmers 
in States like mine, but we aren't getting a chance to debate those 
ideas here today.
  The biggest programs in this bill, the revenue loss program and the 
price loss program that benefit big farmers, they won't do anything for 
the farmers in my State or many others. They won't make them more 
vital, as the Chair on the floor has said today. That's not going to 
happen.
  A bipartisan amendment that I submitted--and this is just one of the 
117 denied consideration--would benefit diversified farmers in every 
State. This is an amendment that has zero cost and is supported by over 
400 organizations from 46 States. It's an amendment that would help the 
tens of thousands of small businesses that did $5 billion in local food 
sales last year.
  I'm glad we will get to vote on the amendment to roll back the 
outrageous SNAP cuts in this bill, but I am very disappointed that 
local food and sustainable agriculture has been left out of the farm 
bill debate.
  This is not an open process, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against the rule.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in fact the gentlewoman is correct, the 
Speaker of the House, Speaker Boehner, did make a public statement, and 
he did indicate that we would be open for business at the Rules 
Committee. I have attempted to do everything necessary and proper to 
make sure that not only a fair hearing was held, but that all the 
people who would choose to come and make an amendment available, that 
the committee was available. We listened. We asked tough questions. We 
did. But we asked questions that I considered to be fair.
  I don't think one witness was discouraged at all from taking all the 
time they needed but respected that we had some 200 amendments to go 
through. We did not rush. We took our time. We were very deliberative. 
We worked with the committee on a bipartisan basis. We consulted 
others, and we received feedback, and we have a model that I believe 
many people, if you came to the Rules Committee yesterday, would say 
they received a fair hearing. Good process.
  I'm for this bill. I think it is fair. I think it is balanced. I 
think it is a good representation of what I'm willing to put my name on 
as a product to present to this House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
his profound leadership on this issue.
  You know, I rise in opposition to this rule because there are many 
amendments that were not made in order, but there's enough pork in this 
farm bill to make a dead pig squeal. I want to talk about just some of 
the silly things that are in this bill that were made in order as 
amendments for us to take up this afternoon, including pennycress as a 
research and development priority at the Risk Management Agency, or an 
amendment to direct the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to 
conduct an economic analysis of the existing market for U.S. Atlantic 
spiny dogfish.
  But an amendment I had that would have given veterans waiting for 
disability claims to be processed the opportunity for SNAP as a 
disabled person was not made in order.
  And another amendment that would have made crop insurance subsidies 
that taxpayers in this country pay, some $9 billion a year, 
transparent--not in order. There are 26 companies in this country, 
agribusinesses, that are receiving more than $1 million apiece in crop 
insurance premiums, but we don't get to know who they are. That was an 
amendment I had that was not made in order, even though Grover Norquist 
thinks it should be made in order, U.S. PIRG thinks it should be made 
in order, and the Environmental Working Group thinks it should be made 
in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SPEIER. But we're more interested in talking about the Atlantic 
spiny dogfish, or pennycress than dealing with issues around veterans 
accessing SNAP and whether or not the public has a right to know when 
we spend $9 billion a year on premium payments for crop insurance, just 
another name for what has historically been a farm subsidy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm down to the bare minimum time I have 
left, and I'm going to reserve my time to close. I will close whenever 
the gentleman is prepared to do the same.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  I will insert in the Record a letter that was sent to Members of 
Congress by dozens and dozens of organizations ranging from the AFL-
CIO; The Alliance to End Hunger; Bread for the World; Feeding America; 
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC); Jewish Council for Public 
Affairs; Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger; MomsRising; and Share Our 
Strength. I can go on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate we are having and will have 
on this farm bill. It is about our values. The question is, is it 
acceptable to try to balance the budget or pay for other programs to 
benefit wealthy special interests by cutting a program that benefits 
the poorest of the poor in this country, a program called SNAP.
  The people on SNAP, I want to remind my colleagues, are good, decent, 
honest people. They are our neighbors. They are people who have fallen 
on hard times. They are people who are working, working full time and 
still not earning enough to be able to not qualify for public 
assistance. Those are the people we're talking about. Those are the 
people who would be adversely impacted with a $20.5 billion cut.
  I would also say to my colleagues who say that we can't afford to 
support our social safety net, can't afford to support anti-hunger 
programs, I want

[[Page H3783]]

them to know that hunger costs America a great deal. The Center For 
American Progress did a study that said it cost us $168.5 billion a 
year in avoidable health care costs, disability, lost wages, reduced 
learning capacity.
  Hungry children who go to school don't learn. That's why it's 
particularly cruel that over 200,000 kids will lose their access to 
free lunch and breakfast at school. Those kids will go to school 
hungry. You don't learn if you're hungry. We all talk about preparing 
the new generation and making sure our kids have all the opportunities. 
But food is as essential to learning as that textbook is. And here we 
are, we're going to embrace a bill that cuts 200,000 kids off the 
school breakfast and lunch program. Cutting SNAP will make hunger 
worse, and it will have long-term consequences.
  Let me just finally say that we're going to have an amendment coming 
up shortly after we vote on the rule that I have sponsored along with 
dozens and dozens of other Members here in the House of Representatives 
to restore the cuts in SNAP. I would urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to think long and hard before you vote. We don't have to 
do this. The price of a farm bill should not be making more people 
hungry in America, but yet that's the price that's being exacted 
through this bill.
  We are a better country than this. Let's not go down this road. This 
used to be a bipartisan effort. Bob Dole and Bill Emerson championed 
some of the anti-hunger programs that have kept people fed, that have 
invested in people who are now very successful. Don't turn your backs 
on that tradition.
  And to my Democratic colleagues, I remind you that if we do not stand 
with people who are hungry, with people who are poor and vulnerable, 
then what the hell do we stand for? You know, this is about our values.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule 
because a lot of amendments that should have been made in order were 
not. I appreciate the courtesies that my colleague, Mr. Sessions, 
afforded to us in the Rules Committee. I know he tried very hard to 
include as many amendments as possible. I appreciate that very much. I 
appreciate my amendment being made in order, but I think we could have 
done a little bit better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. And please vote 
``yes'' on the McGovern amendment. If that should fail, do not send a 
farm bill forward that will throw 2 million people off the rolls of 
SNAP and 200,000 kids off of free breakfast and lunch programs. We can 
do much better than that.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                                    June 19, 2013.
       We, the undersigned, support Rep. James McGovern's 
     amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to 
     the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
     currently in H.R. 1947. As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947 
     because it would increase hunger among millions of 
     Americans--people with disabilities, children, seniors and 
     struggling parents--those who work, as well as those who are 
     unemployed or underemployed.
       At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to 
     put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House 
     farm bill are unconscionable and harmful. Specifically, the 
     House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing 
     SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing 
     their benefits reduced by about $90 per month.
       Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm 
     bill. Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per 
     person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November 
     1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which 
     will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25 
     per month for a family of three.
       We support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to 
     restore the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP and urge Members of 
     Congress to vote YES when it comes up for a vote.
       Advocates for Better Children's Diets (ABCD), AFL-CIO, 
     Alliance for a Just Society, Alliance to End Hunger, American 
     Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Commodity Distribution 
     Association (ACDA), American Federation of State, County & 
     Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of 
     Teachers, AFL-CIO, American Public Health Association, 
     Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Association of Jewish 
     Family and Children's Agencies, B. Sackin & Associates, Bread 
     for the World, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), 
     Center for Women Policy Studies, Children's Defense Fund, 
     Children's HealthWatch, Coalition on Human Needs (CHN), 
     Community Action Partnership (CAP), Congressional Hunger 
     Center (CHC), E S Foods, Environmental Working Group (EWG), 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
       Families USA, Family Economic Initiative, Feeding America, 
     First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action 
     Center (F-RAC), Friends Committee on National Legislation, 
     International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers (IFPTE), International Union, United Automobile, 
     Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), 
     Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Legal Momentum, MAZON: A 
     Jewish Response to Hunger, MomsRising, National Association 
     of County Human Services Administrators, National Black Child 
     Development Institute, National Center for Law and Economic 
     Justice (NCLEJ), National Council on Aging, National CSFP 
     Association, National Education Association (NEA), National 
     Employment Law Project (NELP), National Health Care for the 
     Homeless Council, National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
       National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National WIC 
     Association, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK: A National 
     Catholic Social Justice Lobby, PolicyLink, Presbyterian 
     Church (U.S.A.), Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 
     Coalition (REHCD), RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center 
     on Poverty Law, School Food FOCUS National Office, School 
     Nutrition Association (SNA), Share Our Strength, Sisters of 
     Mercy of the Americas Institute Justice Team, Society for 
     Nutrition Education and Behavior (SNEB), SparkAction, The 
     Food Trust, Union for Reform Judaism, United States 
     Conference of Mayors (USCM), Voices for America's Children, 
     Voices for Progress, WhyHunger, Wider Opportunities for 
     Women.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, is most kind. He is most kind in not only how he 
presented his ideas today, and perhaps even some opposition, and I 
respect that. I respect him for not only standing up almost every day I 
see him for not just what he believes in, but caring about people.
  My party cares about people, too. The Republican Party cares very 
much for people, not only those who have fallen on tough times but 
those who are friends and neighbors, and those who we don't know who 
live in our communities who are hurting, who are actually having tough 
times feeding their kids, finding work, paying student loans, and 
getting things done in their community that will better their 
community, following the guidelines that they always have about how 
tomorrow will be a better day for America and Americans. These are 
tough times.
  But what we've done, and our mission today, is to take a farm bill 
that passed out of the committee that is very equally divided 36-10. 
This committee that looked at not just the policy on farm policy but 
has held hearing after hearing around this country, some 40 hearings 
over the last few years on the farm bill, to get it prepared and ready 
for this floor, to prepare it for the Rules Committee where both 
Republican and Democrat members of that committee came and thoughtfully 
presented their ideas, offered support for the bill once again that 
passed 36-10 in committee, and moved new ideas and allowed new ideas to 
be debated on this floor.

                              {time}  1410

  Look, not every amendment was made in order. I admit that. Did I want 
that as a goal to get closer? You bet I did.
  But we allowed the debate and the opportunity up at the Rules 
Committee and then are trying to craft a bill that is in line with what 
the crafters wanted from farm policy. They're the people that 
understand this best. They're the people that know the impact.
  And so I'm proud of the product. I think we've bettered it. I think 
we made it better up in the committee. I think we made it better here. 
And the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, is a part of that process.
  As chairman of the Rules Committee, I have the authority and the 
responsibility to ensure that the mark that we make, that the 
presentation that we put on this floor and, most of all, that the 
legislation that allows full debate and content is important.
  So, look, what we're going to do is try and worry about a new farm 
bill that we can move forward. I am supporting this bill. I hope we'll 
vote on the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Jackson 
Lee amendment #94, which will be in the en bloc for H.R.

[[Page H3784]]

1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 
2013.'' My thanks to Agriculture Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas and 
Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson for including the Jackson Lee 
amendment in the en bloc.
  I appreciate the work of Rules Committee Chair McGovern and Rules 
Committee members for managing the debate on amendments to H.R. 1947.
  I offered amendments to H.R. 1947 for deliberation by the Rules 
Committee for approval for consideration by the Full House. Only one of 
my amendments was made in order and will be included in the en bloc for 
the bill.
  Jackson Lee #94 will be included in the en bloc and is a sense of 
Congress that the Federal Government should increase business 
opportunities for small businesses, black farmers, women and minority 
businesses.
  Small farm businesses, black farmers, women and minority agriculture 
related businesses could benefit from partnerships with federal office 
location in receiving support for farmers markets. This would assist 
with eliminating food deserts, which are urban neighborhoods and rural 
towns without easy access to fresh, healthy and affordable food. These 
communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food 
restaurants and convenience stores.
  Other amendments, I request that the Rules Committee favorably 
consider included Amendment #1, the McGovern amendment, which was 
joined by over 80 members of the House. This important amendment would 
restore $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP funding by offsetting the Farm 
Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage Option.
  Jackson Lee amendments not included in the Rule for the bill include:
  Jackson Lee amendment #182 was a sense of Congress that the Federal 
Government should increase financial support provided to urban 
community gardens and victory gardens to heighten awareness of 
nutrition.
  The knowledge shared with urban dwellers can have a long term benefit 
to the health of our nation by increasing awareness regarding the link 
between what we eat and health. This would also be a means of expanding 
the diet options for persons who live in areas where the cost of fresh 
fruits and vegetables can be prohibitive.
  Jackson Lee #183 is a sense of Congress regarding funding for a 
nutrition program for disabled and older Americans. Accessible and 
affordable nutrition is especially important when dietary needs change 
or must accommodate life's changes. Older Americans and persons with 
disabilities often must live with restricted diets.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #184 was a sense of Congress that encourages 
food items being provided pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and 
school lunch program should be selected so as to reduce the incidence 
of juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.
  This amendment passed the House by a substantial margin in the 110th 
Congress by a recorded vote of 422 to 3. The inclusion of this 
amendment in the Rule for 1947 would affirm congressional commitment to 
fight juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value. The amendment 
should have been made in order considering the epidemic of juvenile and 
adult obesity.
  Finally, I sought support by the Rules Committee of an amendment 
offered by Congresspersons Kildee, Fudge, Peters, Tim Ryan, and Jackson 
Lee amendment #53.
  This amendment was not included in the final Rule for the bill. This 
amendment would have brought healthy food to those with limited access 
to fresh fruits and vegetables through a public-private partnership. It 
would increase funding for SNAP incentive programs for fresh fruits and 
vegetables by $5 million per year, which is offset by decreasing the 
adjusted gross income limit for certain Title and Title II programs.
  Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this 
Nation must have to exist and to prosper. The $20.5 billion cuts in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP would 
remove 2 million Americans from this important food assistance program, 
and 210,000 children would lose access to free or reduced price school 
meals.
  The course of our Nation's history led to changes in our economy, 
first from agricultural to industrial and now technological. These 
economic changes impacted the availability and affordability of food. 
Today our Nation is still one of the wealthiest in the world, but we 
now have food deserts. A food desert is a place where access to food 
may not be available and certainly access to health sustaining food is 
not available.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as a ``low-
access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 
percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a 
supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for 
rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery 
store is more than 10 miles.
  Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a 
result of fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, 
vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.
  The results of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other 
health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in 
rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of 
access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support 
normal metabolic function.
  Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown 
in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease 
and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in 
food deserts is the presence of fast food establishments instead of 
grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast 
foods, this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for 
arterial disease, a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a 
constant diet of fast foods is also vulnerable to higher risks of 
insulin resistance which results in diabetes.
  In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households, or 20 percent of 
residents, do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile 
from a grocery store.
  At the beginning of the third millennium of this Nation's existence 
we should know better. Denying a higher quality of life that would 
result from better access to healthier food choices is shortsighted--it 
is also economically unsound and threatens our national security.
  Social stability is threatened when people's basic needs are not 
met--food, clean drinking water and breathable air are the least of the 
requirements for life. Denying access to sufficient amounts of the 
right kinds of food means people will become less productive, more 
prone to disease and will not be able to function as contributing 
members of society.
  For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people 
assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or 
children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming 
from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.
  Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask 
for help; they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is 
persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough 
to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their 
children can eat.
  In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 
percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In 
households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. 
Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.
  In 2011, according to Feeding America:
  46.2 million people were in poverty;
  9.5 million families were in poverty;
  26.5 million people ages 18-64 were in poverty;
  16.1 million children under the age of 18 were in poverty;
  3.6 million (9.0 percent) of seniors 65 and older were in poverty.
  In the State of Texas:
  34% of children live in poverty in Texas;
  21% of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas;
  17% of elderly live in poverty in Texas.
  In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. Census reports that over the 
last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.
  In 2011:
  50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 
million adults and 16.7 million children;
  households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly 
higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 
percent.
  Eighteen percent of households in the state of Texas from 2009 
through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity--only 
the state of Mississippi exceeds the ratio of households struggling 
with hunger.
  In the 18th Congressional District an estimated 151,741 families 
lived in poverty.
  There are charitable organizations that many of us contribute to that 
provide food assistance to people in need, but their resources would 
not be able to fill the gap created by a $20.5 billion cut to Federal 
food assistance programs.
  Food banks and pantries fill an important role by helping the working 
poor, disabled and the poor gain access to food assistance when 
government subsidized food assistance or budgets fall short of basic 
needs. Food pantries also help when an unforeseen circumstance occurs 
and more food is needed for a family to make it until payday or 
government assistance arrives. However, food pantries cannot carry the 
full burden of a community's need for food on their own.
  During these difficult economic times, people who once gave to food 
pantries may now

[[Page H3785]]

seek donations from them. Millions of low income persons and families 
receive food assistance through SNAP. This program represents the 
Nation's largest program that combats domestic hunger.
  For more than 40 years, SNAP has offered nutrition assistance to 
millions of low income individuals and families. Today, the SNAP 
program serves over 46 million people each month.
  SNAP Statistics:
  Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp 
benefits.
  23 percent of households include a disabled person and 18 percent of 
households include an elderly person.
  The FSP increases household food spending, and the increase is 
greater than what would occur with an equal benefit in cash.
  Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much 
($9.20) in total community spending.
  The economics of SNAP food support programs benefit everyone by 
preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds 
coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable 
supermarkets. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the 
cost of food for everyone less expensive and assure a variety and 
abundance of food selections found in grocery stores.
  SNAP is the largest program in the American domestic hunger safety 
net. The Food and Nutrition Service programs supported by SNAP work 
with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood as well as 
faith-based organizations to assist those eligible for nutrition 
assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State 
partners and the retail community to improve program administration and 
work to ensure the program's integrity.
  Yes, more can be done to assure that food distribution from the 
fields to the tables of Americans in most need can be improved. The 
process of improving our nation's ability to more efficiently and 
effectively meet the food needs of citizens must begin with 
understanding the problem and acting on facts. I strongly support 
hearings on the subject and encourage all oversight committees to 
consider taking up the matter during this Congress.
  However, we cannot ignore the safety process in place to prevent 
abuse or misuse of the program. The Federal SNAP law provides two basic 
pathways for financial eligibility to the program: (1) Meeting federal 
eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or 
``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or 
receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. 
Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who 
already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income 
program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.
  However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to 
expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law 
created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
(AFDC) program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF 
is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and 
human services.
  TANF gives states flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a 
wide variation of benefits and services offered among the states. SNAP 
allows states to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a 
TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides states with 
the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of 
benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance 
typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher 
levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.
  Congress cannot afford to forget that by the year 2050, the world 
population is expected to be 9 billion persons. We cannot build our 
nation's food security on an uncertain future. Domestic food production 
and access to healthy nutritious food is essential to our Nation's long 
term national security.
  Until we see the final farm bill, including the amendment adopted by 
the Full House, I cannot offer my support for the legislation as it is 
written.
  The bill is too shortsighted about the realities of hunger in our 
Nation--the fact that it proposes to cut $20.5 billion from the SNAP 
program is of great concern. We should work to create certainty for 
farmers who run high risk businesses that are vulnerable to weather 
changes, insects or blight.
  We should be equally concerned about providing long term food 
security for all of our Nation's citizens, which include rural, 
suburban and urban dwellers.
  I thank the Agriculture Committee for including the Jackson Lee 
amendment in the en bloc for the bill. I ask my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support the McGovern amendment to prevent the 
$20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. I urge all members to vote 
in favor of the en bloc and the McGovern amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on 
ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 271, if 
ordered, and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               YEAS--233

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--187

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng

[[Page H3786]]


     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bonner
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Poe (TX)
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1435

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 177, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--177

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bonner
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Garcia
     Gohmert
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Hudson
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Pallone
     Rogers (KY)
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1443

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 254, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 254, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________