[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[House]
[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be withdrawn by its proponent at any time before action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.''
____________________