[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 142 (Friday, October 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6505-H6514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1400
  RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO 
H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013; 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 378, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE 
RELATING TO TARIFF-RATE QUOTAS FOR RAW AND REFINED SUGAR; AND PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 379, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE RELATING TO 
                             CROP INSURANCE

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 380

       Resolved, That it shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Agriculture or his designee to move that the House insist on 
     its amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 and agree 
     to a conference with the Senate thereon.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 378) expressing the 
     sense of the House of Representatives regarding certain 
     provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to 
     the Secretary of Agriculture's administration of tariff-rate 
     quotas for raw and refined sugar. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Pitts of Pennsylvania or his designee and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 379) expressing the 
     sense of the House of Representatives regarding certain 
     provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to 
     crop insurance. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by Representative Ryan of 
     Wisconsin or his designee and an opponent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (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

  Ms. FOXX. 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 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 380 provides for a motion to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform 
and Risk Management Act, also known as the farm bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule authorizes House Agriculture Committee 
Chairman Frank Lucas to make a motion to go to conference with the 
Senate on the farm bill and provides for consideration of two 
resolutions expressing the sense of the House regarding specific 
provisions in the farm bill.
  Conference committees are a crucial step in resolving policy 
differences between the House and Senate, and I am encouraged that the 
House is taking this step to provide certainty for farmers across this 
country by reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy.
  The House proposal is not perfect, but it moves Federal agriculture 
policy in the right direction; and my hope is that during a conference 
committee with the Senate, we can find common ground.
  Additionally, the rule makes in order the consideration of two 
resolutions that express the sense of the House on crop insurance and 
the U.S. sugar program. The first resolution expresses the sense of the 
House that conferees should agree to limit crop insurance based on 
average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000. This commonsense 
proposal ensures that crop insurance is appropriately targeted to those 
who need it most.
  The second resolution instructs conferees to advance provisions to 
repeal the administration of tariff rate quotas and, thus, restore the 
Secretary of Agriculture's authority to manage supplies of sugar 
throughout the year to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices. I 
strongly support this resolution, as it restores free-market principles 
to the U.S. sugar program.
  This rule provides for the business of legislating and resolving 
differences between our two Chambers to find common ground and move 
forward in reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule, the motion to go to conference, and 
the motions to instruct provided by this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally going to conference on 
the farm bill. I believe strongly that we need to reauthorize a 5-year 
bill to provide some clarity and provide some certainty not just for 
our farmers, but also for the millions of Americans who rely on 
nutrition assistance to feed themselves and their families.
  I need to just say a few words about the process. I do not think I 
have ever seen a motion to go to conference with two motions to 
instruct conferees to the majority party in the House as all part of 
one rule. This is kind of an odd precedent, Mr. Speaker; but there are 
a lot of odd things going on around here during these last few days. We 
see major pieces of legislation, appropriation bills, coming to the 
Rules Committee that have never even been considered on the floor; and 
all of a sudden, they are brought before the House under a closed 
process. But anyway, I think it is pretty clear that regular order has 
been discarded in this House.
  But putting that aside, let me say that I would like to take most of 
my time here to talk about the issue of hunger in America because this 
bill is very relevant to that subject.
  After a $20 billion cut to the SNAP program was voted down by the 
House in June, the Republican leadership sadly decided to double-down 
on the cruelty with a nearly $40 billion cut. That bill also narrowly 
passed, and I want to thank the brave Republicans who stood with us, 
who listened to their own constituents, and who listened to their 
consciences and joined with us in voting ``no'' on that $40 billion 
cut.
  Supporters of those cuts say it is all about ``reform.'' Well, this 
is not about reform, Mr. Speaker. It is about trying to destroy a very 
important part of the social safety net.
  I am happy to talk to anyone and everyone about how we can improve 
SNAP. Where there is waste or there is fraud or there is abuse, we 
should crack down on it; but the House bill takes a sledgehammer to a 
program that provides food--food, Mr. Speaker--to some of our most 
vulnerable neighbors.
  The CBO says that the nearly $40 billion cut would throw 3.8 million 
low-income people off SNAP in 2014 and millions more in the following 
years. These are some of America's poorest adults as well as many low-
income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages. Let me 
say that again, Mr. Speaker, so there is no confusion. People who work 
or who don't make enough to feed their families would be cut from this 
program.
  Well, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families 
will also lose their free school meals; and 170,000 unemployed veterans 
will lose their SNAP benefits. Now, we all stand up here and tell our 
constituents how much we care about our veterans and how much we honor 
them; but to throw 170,000 of these veterans off this food program 
because they can't find work, that is unbelievable. That is 
unbelievable, and it is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be poor in America. It is not a 
glamorous life. It is a struggle just to make it through the day. The 
average SNAP benefit is $1.50 per meal. Housing costs, transportation 
costs, child care costs--they all add up.

  Fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. Think of people like 
Bob Dole and Bill Emerson working with George McGovern and Tony Hall.

[[Page H6506]]

  I am hopeful that once we get to conference, we can resurrect that 
bipartisan spirit and work together to strengthen our Nation's food 
assistance programs.
  I would also note that we are approaching November 1, a day of 
reckoning for my Republican colleagues. Automatic cuts to SNAP are 
already scheduled to take place. If they do not end the Republican 
shutdown, we are going to see even more terrible, terrible consequences 
for the hungry in this country. We have already seen some assistance 
delayed or denied. If this shutdown isn't ended, SNAP, WIC, Meals on 
Wheels, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program will all be 
devastated.
  I would say to my colleagues, you can't approach the budget in a 
piecemeal way, and you can't approach the social safety net in this 
country in a piecemeal way. If you miss a part of that net that makes 
up the social safety net in this country, then people fall through the 
cracks; and people are falling through the cracks because of this 
ridiculous shutdown that my Republican friends have thrust upon this 
country.
  We shouldn't be here talking about a shutdown or about whether we are 
going to default on our debt come October 17. We should be talking 
about how we create jobs for people or how we strengthen programs to 
end hunger in America and how we make life for people in this country 
better, not worse. And yet here we are, as we are about to go to 
conference on the farm bill, dealing with this shutdown that is making 
hunger worse in America.
  I would urge my colleagues to, once again, come to the floor with a 
clean continuing resolution. Bring up the Senate bill, the Senate bill 
that is at Republican numbers, the budget numbers that my Republican 
friends said they wanted, the sequester numbers that I think are awful; 
but let's bring it up and have a clean vote.
  I am willing to compromise and cooperate with my Republican 
colleagues to pass a short-term continuing resolution at their numbers 
to keep the government going. I think that is the least we could do. 
And I would urge my colleagues, before the day is out, to bring that 
kind of resolution to the House floor.
  So I urge my colleagues to pass a clean continuing resolution and 
remove the sword hanging over the heads of the hungry in this country. 
I would also urge all of my colleagues, as we go to conference, to 
insist that in that conference we fix this terrible, terrible mistake 
that this House of Representatives made when they passed a $40 billion 
cut in the SNAP program.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule to 
consider my resolution to reform the sugar program. At the time we 
passed the farm bill this summer, opponents of sugar reform were 
telling us that the program didn't cost taxpayers a dime. Now, just a 
few months later, the program is costing taxpayers $250 million.
  Sugar is the only commodity program in the farm bill that had no 
reform. Even as other commodities were modified to put more risk on 
farmers, sugar continues to get its sweet deal. Cotton, peanuts, dairy 
farmers will all see changes in the coming year, but not sugar farmers.
  It is a sweet deal that is sour for consumers, for taxpayers, and for 
businesses across the country. For consumers, those who use sugar, high 
prices mean they are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year. For 
taxpayers, low sugar prices mean bailouts rising to hundreds of 
millions of dollars. For businesses, for those who use and consume 
sugar in the food industry, high sugar prices place them at a distinct 
disadvantage to foreign competition.
  The Department of Commerce estimates that 127,000 jobs were lost in 
food industries between 1997 and 2011. There are 600,000 jobs across 
the country at risk.
  My resolution does not repeal the sugar program. It is very modest 
reform, modest reform that would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to 
stabilize the price of sugar. Stabilizing the price isn't just good for 
consumers, it is good for farmers who can rely on a more constant price 
and not be subject to wild swings in the market.
  With the truth about the sugar program even more clear now, it is 
time we had an honest debate about fairness in our agriculture 
programs. This does not require the import of a single additional pound 
of sugar. It gives the Secretary flexibility to meet domestic demand.
  So I urge Members to support the resolution and support the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking 
member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose this motion because we have 
been trying to get this farm bill resolved since May of 2010, back when 
I was still chairman of the committee, so we have been working on it 
this long and we need to get this resolved. But what is being done here 
today is unprecedented as far as I can tell in the history of the 
House, where we are giving these two sense of the Congress resolutions 
to the majority.
  From what I can tell, this has never been done before, and we are re-
litigating issues that were settled on the floor of the House when we 
debated the farm bill. These motions take a contrary position to the 
position that the House took, so we are going to be voting to go 
against the position that we took here just a couple of months ago. So 
that is my problem with this.
  Historically, the minority gets a motion to instruct, and that has 
been the way it has been. In all the years that I have been here, that 
is the way it has been. But there's never been a situation like this. I 
think it is a bad precedent. It is going to be confusing to people, and 
we need to get to conference to get this resolved.
  Given the way this conference appears it is going to be put together, 
I am not so optimistic that it is going to work because you are 
bringing people from outside of the committee into this process, which 
is what blew this thing up in the first place in June. And it's not 
going to make anything easier.
  We are going to work together and try to get this resolved, but the 
way all this is coming down is making our job a lot harder, rather than 
a lot easier, which is the wrong direction, as far as I am concerned.
  So I encourage Members to oppose this rule. This is unprecedented. It 
is apparently being done because that is the only way they can get the 
votes. And we are doing a lot of things around here because of that, 
and that is not the way we should do things.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2642 makes commonsense, market-oriented reforms to 
agricultural policy, which is why it is time to begin conversations 
with our Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets these 
important reforms enacted into law.
  This bill isn't perfect, but it puts us on a path to provide 
certainty to America's farmers and ranchers by adopting a 5-year farm 
bill that will actually become law.
  This measure is the result of more than 3 years of debate and 
discussion, including 46 hearings and a 2-year audit of every farm 
program. The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs 
administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, including 
direct payments.
  It eliminates and streamlines duplicative and overlapping 
conservation programs and trims traditional farm policy by almost $23 
billion. The bill eliminates direct payments and ensures no payments 
are made to those who do not actually farm.
  The bill also provides regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers. It 
eliminates a duplicative permitting requirement for pesticides and 
prohibits the EPA from implementing the unjustified and unscientific 
biological opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service until 
there is an unbiased, scientific peer review of those opinions.
  The bill requires regulatory agencies across the government to use 
scientifically sound information in moving forward with their 
regulatory initiatives. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
advocate on behalf of the

[[Page H6507]]

farmers and ranchers as other agencies move forward with regulations 
affecting food and fiber.
  The bill also eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for seed 
importers.
  Finally, H.R. 2642 repeals the underlying 1949 permanent law and 
replaces it with the 2013 farm bill. This is important, Mr. Speaker, 
because without reauthorization farm policy will revert to permanent 
statutes established in the 1938 and 1949 laws which are drastically 
different from current programs.
  The permanent statutes exclude many commodities such as rice, 
soybeans, and peanuts; set support prices much higher than current 
levels; and prevent new enrollment in various conservation programs.
  Permanent agriculture law established by the Agriculture Adjustments 
Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 does not reflect current 
farming and marketing practices, trade agreements or market 
circumstances.
  Farmers, as well as taxpayers, will benefit from a modernized bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
ranking member on the Ag Committee, Mr. Peterson, when he talks about 
kind of how unusual this process is with the sense of Congress 
resolutions that are put into this rule, basically, to instruct 
conferees on what to do.

  It is highly unusual that the majority gives itself two of these 
sense of Congress resolutions. But this whole process has been really 
strange.
  I would just say to my colleagues, I come to this floor every week 
and I talk about the issue of hunger and food insecurity in America. 
There are 50 million people who are hungry; 17 million are kids. I 
think it is something we all should be ashamed of.
  I am on the Agriculture Committee, as well as being on the Rules 
Committee. I am on the Subcommittee on Nutrition. I was anxious to get 
on that committee so I could talk about the importance of a social 
safety net, about the importance of making sure that people in this 
country have enough to eat. Much to my surprise, Mr. Speaker, the 
Subcommittee on Nutrition held a total of zero hearings on SNAP. The 
full committee held no hearings.
  Then, even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, was that the nutrition title 
wasn't even written in the Agriculture Committee. It was written in the 
majority leader's back room somewhere by God knows who wrote this 
thing. But it never came to the Agriculture Committee.
  It was never brought up for a hearing. There was no markup. There 
were no amendments that were to be offered. And then it showed up at 
the Rules Committee magically and was brought to this floor, a $40 
billion cut that would throw 3.8 million people off the program, that 
would throw 170,000 veterans off the program.
  No hearings, nothing. Nothing.
  And my colleagues like to talk about regular order. That is not 
regular order. That is blowing up the whole process.
  If my friends have concerns about the SNAP program, which, by the 
way, is the most efficiently and effectively-run Federal program we 
have, with one of the lowest error rates--I wish the Department of 
Defense had those kind of low error rates--then you hold a hearing.
  You talk to the people who are on the program. You talk to the people 
who administer the program. You do this thoughtfully. You do it so that 
people who don't deserve to get the benefit don't get it, and people 
who deserve to get it get it.
  But my friends come to the floor with this sledgehammer approach, 
this mindless approach of just gutting the program, close to $40 
billion.
  We are slowly but surely getting out of this terrible economy, and as 
we do, fewer and fewer people will be on the program.
  That is the way it works. When the economy is good, fewer people need 
the benefit. When the economy is bad, more people need the benefit.
  But to pull the rug right from underneath people who are still 
struggling--my friends say all we want to do is make sure that able-
bodied people who can work, work. Well, most of the people who are able 
to work, work, who are on SNAP, but they earn so little that they 
qualify for this benefit.
  If my friends want to help lift people off the program, raise the 
minimum wage. But there is something wrong in this country when you 
have got people working full time and earning so little that they are 
still in poverty. That is what we should be addressing.
  But rather than going through regular order, rather than having the 
Agriculture Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, come up with a 
proposal, the majority leader takes this in his own hands and does it 
on his own and brings it to the floor, and we are all supposed to just 
take it.
  I want to, again, thank the handful of Republicans that had the guts 
to stand up and do the right thing and vote against it. We came very 
close to defeating it.
  But I will tell my friends right now that people like me are not 
going to support a farm bill that makes more people hungry in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague from Massachusetts, and it is 
obvious that every time we have anything on this floor or in the Rules 
Committee where we are dealing with the subject of hunger that he is 
extraordinarily passionate about the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans care about Americans who are hungry. We care 
about hunger issues. He makes it sound as though we are heartless 
people. We are not.
  What we are doing here is our best to preserve the program for the 
truly needy and those who are hungry in this country.
  My colleague says it is the most efficiently and effectively-run 
program in the country, with low error rates. That is not what the 
research shows. It isn't even what TV programs find out on their own 
with very little research.
  They go out and they find the terrible abuse with the program, the 
SNAP program, which used to be called the food stamp program, but it 
was given this Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program name some time 
ago to get away from the term ``food stamps.'' But that is what it is. 
It is a food stamp program.
  Almost everybody in this country knows of people who have abused the 
program. Now, we don't want to deny help to truly needy people. If we 
can make these reforms in this program, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance 
to preserve the entire program for those who truly need it.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act 
of 2013, as I said, is designed to preserve the integrity of the SNAP 
program, or food stamps for families, and especially for children who 
rely on food stamps. Its cost-saving reforms are a step in the right 
direction and are long overdue out of respect for needy Americans and 
taxpayers.
  This bill makes the first reforms to the program since the Welfare 
Reform Act of 1996, and these reforms were strengthened during a 
rigorous amendment process on the House floor.
  Despite media reports to the contrary, House Republicans are not 
cutting SNAP for individuals who currently meet the program's 
eligibility requirements. Instead, our reforms focus on eliminating 
fraud and abuse that exist within the program and remove from the 
programs individuals who do not qualify for the benefits.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, I think that bears repeating. What we are doing is 
eliminating fraud and abuse and removing from the program individuals 
who do not qualify for benefits. That is what the American people 
expect us to do in our oversight processes here.
  Because of several well-documented and legally questionable efforts 
by President Obama's Department of Agriculture and by the individual 
States that administer the program, SNAP benefits have been extended to 
a number of recipients who would not otherwise qualify. The growth in 
SNAP spending caused by such expansion efforts will strain the safety 
net until it breaks, necessitating much higher taxes and indiscriminate 
cuts that would hit the poorest Americans the

[[Page H6508]]

hardest. From a moral perspective, such an outcome would harm the very 
people programs like SNAP are intended to help, and that is 
unacceptable. That is why I voted for H.R. 3102 when it passed the 
House on September 19.
  The bill ensures benefits are reserved for legal recipients and 
aren't directed to illegal immigrants.
  The bill closes the ``heat-and-eat'' loophole related to electricity 
bill assistance, gives States the authority to require drug testing for 
recipients, and prohibits felons from receiving SNAP benefits.
  H.R. 3102 reinstates work requirements for all able-bodied adults, 
without dependents, receiving SNAP benefits.
  An overextended, unchecked SNAP program won't be capable of serving 
the citizens it is purposed to help. It is the job of this Congress to 
ensure the program is held accountable as a steward of taxpayer dollars 
and to provide a safety net for the needy.
  For the first time, the House separated farm policy from the food 
stamp program, which is only appropriate, as 80 percent of the so-
called ``farm bill'' in the past was spent on providing nutrition 
assistance to needy families. The farm-only portion of the farm bill 
authorizes farm programs through fiscal year 2018; however, H.R. 3102 
authorizes appropriations for SNAP only through fiscal year 2016.
  If enacted and if the two bills were addressed on 5-and 3-year 
intervals, respectively, this would decouple SNAP from the 
authorization of farm programs until 2031. Considering agriculture and 
nutrition programs independently, going forward, will help take 
politics out of the equation and allow for reforms that will sustain 
both categories of programs in years to come.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I strongly disagree with the gentlelady's statement--strongly 
disagree. My friend talks about oversight. There were no hearings--
none.
  She talks about research somehow shows that there is lots of fraud, 
waste, and abuse. What research? The Government Accountability Office 
and the USDA have all documented fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP 
program, and it is minimal--a little over a 2 percent error rate--and 
much of that is underpayment. People are not getting what they are 
entitled to.
  Enough of this demonizing poor people; enough of diminishing their 
struggle. We ought to do the right thing and make sure that people in 
this country have enough to eat. That shouldn't be a radical idea.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I could not agree more with my friend from 
Massachusetts, who has actually spent the time getting inside this 
program. In fact, if the Republicans really care about hungry people in 
this country, these legislative efforts are a strange way to show it.
  They are restricting the ability of Governors to grant waivers in 
places where people have no access to jobs. Governors, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, have requested these waivers because people need help, 
and the system couldn't meet their needs.
  If they are concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse, look at the Crop 
Insurance Program, which has a higher rate of abuse than the miniscule 
amount with the food stamp program. And yet they are in the process not 
of reforming crop insurance, but enriching it and putting in another 
provision, the so-called ``shallow loss'' provision.
  They are cutting benefits for poor people, increasing payments for 
wealthy farmers, and not dealing with simple, commonsense reforms that 
would give more value to the taxpayer--and not at the expense of the 
neediest Americans.
  This is kind of a through-the-looking-glass situation. There are two 
proposals on the floor--``sense of Congress''--that I will probably 
support.
  I have worked on a bipartisan basis to try and reform the egregious 
sugar program and to try and move in a modest sense to reform crop 
insurance, but we can do far more. And I note that these have 
bipartisan support.
  It is outrageous that we are giving more money to farmers who need it 
least, shortchanging farmers and ranchers in States like mine in 
Oregon, cutting into the benefits for poor people who have no 
alternative, and taking away the right of the Governor to provide 
waivers for them.
  It is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation that exemplifies the weird 
space that we are in today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If we would return to regular order, if we would have 
honest debate on this floor about getting more value for taxpayers, we 
could come forth with a farm bill at a fraction of what it costs now. 
It would be better for farmers and ranchers. It would be better for 
hunters and fishermen. It would be better for the environment and 
better for the taxpayer.
  I strongly hope that we will stop this Alice-in-Wonderland 
experience, reopen the Federal Government, and get back to doing our 
job right.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule and the $40 
billion in disastrous cuts to the food stamp program that the House 
Republican majority is trying to make law.
  This is a cut of $40 billion from the food stamp program. It goes 
against decades of bipartisan support for the fight against hunger in 
the United States. It is a reflection of how extreme today's Republican 
Party has become. Even former Republican Senator Bob Dole has called 
these egregious cuts ``an about-face on our progress fighting hunger.''
  If these cuts become law, over 4 million of the Nation's poorest 
citizens--children, seniors, veterans, and the disabled--would go 
hungry in the United States of America, the most bountiful Nation in 
the world. This is even as Republicans continue to give $90 billion in 
crop insurance subsidies to some of America's wealthiest families and 
agribusiness.
  For food stamp recipients that include a family of four, if their 
income is $23,000 or less, that would give them eligibility for food 
stamps.
  Let's talk about the Crop Insurance Program. You have got 26 
beneficiaries of that program today who get at least a million dollars 
in a subsidy from U.S. taxpayers. They do not have any income 
threshold. They can get the money under any set of circumstances. And 
the top 1 percent of most farm operators in the Nation each get 
$220,000.
  You want to talk about the most needy? These are not the most needy. 
Cut out the $90 billion in the subsidies to the richest people in the 
Nation.
  The cuts are awful enough, but the majority's plan also includes 
cruel, mean-spirited restrictions. For instance, it encourages 
Governors to slash families from the food stamp rolls who cannot find 
work or a job training program for 20 hours a week. It rewards these 
Governors with half of the savings and allows them to use the money for 
tax cuts for the wealthy or whatever else they want.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Even if the food stamp recipient, including parents with 
young children and those with disabilities, is actively searching for a 
job, the House majority would end their benefits.
  This is immoral. It goes against the values that we hold dear in the 
United States of America. Cutting 4 million Americans who live on the 
edge while providing subsidies for the wealthiest is wrong, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the cruelty that this 
rule embodies.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule and this legislation underlying it is not 
designed to abuse or demonize poor people. What we are trying to do is 
to save these programs for the truly needy.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not simply doing oversight on the farm bill and 
on agriculture issues. The House has been doing its job of oversight 
throughout the Federal Government. We have been

[[Page H6509]]

doing that throughout this entire session. We are looking to find 
fraud, abuse, and waste in every program. It just happens that today we 
are talking about this program.
  But as you know, Mr. Speaker, almost every day we bring forth 
legislation that will help us identify waste, fraud, and abuse and do 
everything we can to protect hardworking taxpayers in this country who 
are providing the funds to take care of the truly needy in this country 
and to allow us to help those people, and that is what this legislation 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, the work of making these improvements and reforms to 
longstanding Federal policy is not easy. I commend Chairman Lucas and 
the members of the Agriculture Committee for their thoughtful work. I 
was pleased to work with them and to have three commonsense amendments 
included in H.R. 2642 when it passed the House.
  The spending safeguard amendment will cap spending on the Farm Risk 
Management Election program at 110 percent of CBO-predicted levels for 
the first 5 years in which payments are disbursed.
  And, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that this amendment passed with bipartisan support, as did 
most of the amendments to that legislation.
  In the event government's cost projections prove completely wrong, 
the amendment will ensure taxpayers are not forced to automatically pay 
the difference between Washington's mistake and reality.
  My second amendment, the Sunset Discretionary Programs amendment, 
will automatically end discretionary programs in the 2013 farm bill 
upon expiration of the bill's 5-year authorization period. Many 
programs authorized by the farm bill are authorized indefinitely. This 
amendment will require Congress to justify a program's continued 
existence and funding through regular reauthorization efforts.
  As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, Mr. Speaker, Congress 
simply cannot afford to add to the number of costly Federal programs 
that are on autopilot. This was really an excellent amendment, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Finally, Congressman Keith Ellison, my Democrat colleague, and I 
offered the crop insurance transparency amendment, which will require 
the government to disclose the names of key persons or entities 
receiving Federal crop insurance subsidies. Specifically, disclosure 
would be required for Members of Congress and their immediate families, 
Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate families, and entities in which 
any of the preceding parties are majority stockholders. This 
information is already recorded, but members of the public have to 
petition the government under the Freedom of Information Act to acquire 
the data.

                              {time}  1445

  It shouldn't take a 4-year request for the American people to figure 
out whether their leaders are receiving government farm subsidies. This 
bipartisan amendment makes this information available to the public 
without a FOIA request.
  Mr. Speaker, we want transparency, and my amendment takes us much 
closer to that. I appreciate Chairman Lucas' willingness to work with 
me on these amendments, and I look forward to seeing them maintained 
during the conference committee.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from North 
Carolina that I look forward to the day when she and her Republican 
colleagues bring to the floor a bill to go after fraud, waste, and 
abuse in defense contracting; but, instead, they have chosen to go 
after poor people and are not even giving them the benefit of a 
hearing. There has been no hearing, no markup on this at all. This came 
out of thin air in the majority leader's office. This wasn't even 
brought to the committee of jurisdiction. This is astounding. My 
friends are talking about reform. This isn't reform. This is a joke.
  At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and 
the gentlelady who is managing this legislation and indicate that I 
wish we did have, Mr. McGovern, a bipartisan mission like Mickey Leland 
and Bill Emerson. If anybody remembers those late Members, they founded 
the Select Committee on Hunger in order to stamp out hunger.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we had the kind of passion that drew Robert 
Kennedy to Appalachia to show America that the hunger that existed in 
this Nation was not a respecter of race or region--or maybe even the 
sensitivity of Martin Luther King in the same year. Tragically, they 
both lost their lives in 1968. He was galvanizing poor people to come 
to Washington because they wanted jobs, because they wanted to eat.
  Here we are on the floor of the House, Mr. McGovern, and I read from 
the statement made from the gentleman of Iowa last night on the floor 
that we need to start the long march to start to reform the expansion 
of the dependency class. Who is in the dependency class? There are 
charges that President Obama has put 48 million people on food stamps. 
How has President Obama put 48 million people on food stamps?
  People are hungry, and 16 percent of the poor people in America are 
children. What our friends want to do with regard to reform is if you 
get a school lunch and a school breakfast, that is not evident that 
your family needs food stamps. So maybe this family is dysfunctional. 
Maybe these mothers and fathers are desperate, so now you are going to 
put them through another maze. You haven't documented that they are 
fraudulently taking food stamps, but you are going to drop them off 
food stamps and say, Guys, if you want to get out of your hospice bed 
or if you want to get out of your sick bed or if you want to get out of 
your disabled bed and if you have these children who are getting lunch 
and breakfast, you have got to come and reapply, because there is 
something ingrained about those who are getting a hand up or who are in 
the dependency class.
  I didn't say that. Robert Kennedy didn't say that.
  Let's put a clean CR on the floor, by the way, to open the 
government, and let's stop talking about the idea. I just can't 
understand. We need a clean CR, and let's get it to the floor.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who is the ranking member on the 
Nutrition Subcommittee on the Agriculture Committee. It is the 
subcommittee that should have held a hearing on this SNAP bill, but it 
never did.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just had the opportunity with 10 of my colleagues to 
go to a community shelter today to serve lunch to some of the poorest 
people in our community. The community shelter is So Others Might Eat, 
and I listen to my colleagues talk about waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I am disappointed and embarrassed to serve in a House in which we 
would not want to take care of the poorest people in this Nation. Some 
of the poorest people in our Nation, many of them children, seniors, 
and veterans, depend on SNAP. SNAP puts food on the tables of 
struggling parents who need to send their children to school properly 
nourished. It also gives low-income working families--by the way, who 
represent nearly half of all SNAP recipients--and seniors the necessary 
support they need.
  Last month, this House passed a bill that cut nearly $40 billion in 
food stamps. It is both inappropriate and inexcusable to cut food 
assistance when more than 7 percent of the Nation remains unemployed 
and when we will not pass a jobs bill. Our economy is struggling to 
produce enough jobs so that families can eat without needing this 
assistance; and we all know that, beginning on November 1, SNAP 
recipients will see a reduction in their benefits when the 2009 
Recovery Act's temporary benefits end. According to the CBO, benefits 
will be reduced by as much as $300 per year. This cut will result in 
less food for more than 47 million Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, at some point we have to be honest with ourselves. We 
either have to believe that we are doing our jobs by taking care of the 
people of this country or that we are only taking care of a few.
  So I say to those of you who believe that all of this is about fraud, 
waste,

[[Page H6510]]

and abuse: go to the same shelter that I went to today. Go into your 
neighborhoods and your communities, because we all have them. There are 
poor people and hungry children everywhere. I want you to go and tell 
them that it is okay for you to cut $40 billion in food stamps.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader on this issue of food 
security and on so many other issues to combat poverty.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his determination to eliminate hunger, not only in our own country, 
but throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 46 million Americans living in poverty, 16 
million of whom are children. Instead of focusing on serious ways to 
lift people out of poverty and into the middle class, Republicans have 
insisted on placing a larger burden on the backs of the poor and the 
most vulnerable, effectively kicking them while they are down. That is 
what the Republicans' farm bill nutrition title did when it was passed 
on September 19. It would have decimated the anti-poverty SNAP program 
and would have left hundreds of millions of veterans, children, 
seniors, and millions of working poor hungry and with nowhere to turn 
for a meal. SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates amongst government 
programs.
  House Republicans were unsuccessful in their attempts to pass a farm 
bill this summer, so the Republican leadership doubled down on this 
immoral stance, surrendered the governing of the House down to the 
extreme Tea Party fringe of their party, and passed $40 billion in 
cuts, which means cutting 24 meals a month for a family of four. This 
would be in addition, I might add, to SNAP cuts already scheduled to go 
into effect on November 1. This means about $29 less per month for food 
for a family of three. These cuts to the SNAP program are really 
heartless. Let me tell you that I know from personal experience that 
the majority of people on food stamps wants a job that pays a living 
wage, and SNAP provides this bridge over troubled waters during very 
difficult times.
  In my own congressional district, for example, over 22,000 households 
would have been impacted in more than 1.6 million homes throughout 
California. In 2011, SNAP lifted 4.7 million Americans out of poverty, 
including 2.1 million children. In addition to feeding the Nation's 
hungry, SNAP is vital to our economy. For every $1 increase in SNAP 
benefits, we have received back in economic activity $1.70.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Without SNAP, millions of families would fall 
into poverty while millions more Americans would suffer extreme hunger 
and our economy would create even fewer jobs.
  Let me remind you that millions of people on food stamps are working. 
Their wages are stagnant and low. Many make less than $8 an hour; yet 
they are working every day to feed their families. Paying billions in 
farm subsidies and cutting SNAP benefits for the most vulnerable is not 
a value that a majority of Americans embrace. Cutting SNAP benefits is 
not the American way.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is prepared, so I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me inquire of the gentlelady if she would be 
willing to yield us a few minutes on this side because we have a lot of 
speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close whenever the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I remember one time when I lent the gentlewoman a 
couple of minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans continue to demonstrate just how far out 
of whack their priorities are.
  Here we are in the 11th day of the Republican government shutdown--a 
shutdown for the sole purpose of denying health care to millions of 
Americans. I guess America shouldn't be surprised. After all, last 
month, the majority pushed through severe, painful cuts to the 
nutrition programs for hungry families. We are now moving toward going 
to a conference with the Senate on these damaging cuts. By insisting on 
these nearly $40 billion in cuts, the Republicans have made clear where 
they stand, even clearer where they don't stand.
  Now, understand. I know that the gentlelady talks about the truly 
needy, but what she is really saying is that the somewhat needy, the 
sorta needy, the kinda needy, the ``needy'' needy need not apply 
because they are not in need of food stamps. When you look at the 
number of $20 billion, it was the original number, which is a block 
number, and it was without consequences to who they would hurt.
  When that failed, they said, What would work? Let's use $40 billion. 
Yes, $40 billion will do it--a nice, neat number without any 
consequences to who might get hurt. Someone had a bright idea on the 
other side and said that this number will work, and it was without a 
rationale for the number and without any understanding of what the 
impact would be.
  So we know where they stand. They don't stand with 900,000 veterans 
who receive food assistance each month. They don't stand with 2.1 
million children who have been kept out of poverty by the food stamp 
program. They don't stand with the seniors who have to choose between 
food and medicine--or with the families of disabled children or with 
our military families who turn to food stamps to stretch their budgets. 
Heaven forbid we suggest taking away subsidies from Big Oil or tax 
breaks from owners of corporate jets.
  What does that say about Republican priorities and their vision? The 
fact is that their vision leads to a world in which millions more go 
hungry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. In New York City alone, the Republicans' cut would 
result in 130 million fewer meals. That is unacceptable to me, and it 
ought to be unacceptable to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 
The fact that it is not unacceptable tells us something we need to know 
about our Republican colleagues' view of struggling families in this 
country: they don't care about their struggles. They wouldn't recognize 
a needy person if they tripped over him on the street outside the 
Capitol.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I would challenge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of whether we 
recognize poor people or not. Some of us probably grew up poorer than 
anybody on the other side of the aisle. I am one of those people. I 
have great empathy for people who are poor, but I am so pleased that we 
live in the greatest country in the world in which we have the 
opportunities to overcome poverty because of the great opportunities 
that are given to us in the country.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of comity and goodness, I yield 
the 3 minutes that is requested of me to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has an additional 3 minutes to control.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
her graciousness in allowing my side a few more minutes. I appreciate 
it very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will allow the House to vote on the Senate's clean continuing 
resolution so that we can send it to the President for his signature 
today and end this government shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?

[[Page H6511]]

  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of goodness, I ask unanimous 
consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to House Joint 
Resolution 59, the clean CR, and go to conference on a budget so that 
we would end this idiotic government shutdown and not go on recess 
later today. The American people expect us to act today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under guidelines consistently issued by 
successive Speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the House Rules and 
Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it 
has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield for a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield for a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
House bring up the Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 59, the 
clean CR, and go to conference on a budget so that we may end this 
irresponsible Republican government shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we end this unnecessary Republican 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I again ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we can finally end this Republican 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, a request 
cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean 
CR, and go to conference on a budget so that we end this Republican 
government shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we can end the Republican government 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and 
go to conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican 
government shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican government 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Horsford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican government 
shutdown now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring 
up the Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 59, the clean CR, so 
that we can go to conference on a budget so we can end this Republican 
government shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the idea of the House and Senate reconciling 
their differences on the farm bill and going to conference. It is 
certainly long overdue.
  I caution, however, that I will not vote for deep cuts in the SNAP 
program or the food stamp program, nor do I believe that Democrats will 
vote to take food away from those Americans who suffer from food 
insecurity. They have shut down the government, and now they want to 
shut down food assistance to the most vulnerable, many of whom live in 
my congressional district.
  Open up the government, open up food banks, open up Meals on Wheels 
for seniors, and give a hand to those who are hurting. It is good for 
families, and it is good for farmers.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished 
Member of the Democratic leadership.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill because I have worked very 
hard over the years helping to put together various farm bills, and 
this is one that I felt very, very good about from the outset. I even 
felt okay when the bill came back from the Senate. Although I had some 
issues with the Senate version, I thought that what we were doing made 
some sense.
  But we have reached a point with this bill--$40 billion in cuts to 
the food stamp program--that will not only impact negatively those 
people who would receive those stamps in fighting off poverty or 
hunger, but it would do tremendous harm to various community outlets--
stores, family-owned markets--where so much of the income of small 
businesses depend upon this program and what it will do to help further 
the economy in various communities.
  I am also very concerned that in this legislation, we treat the 
recipients of food stamps as if they are responsible for what may or 
may not have taken place with respect to drug addiction to children or 
to siblings. I think there is something erroneous about drug testing in 
order to receive food stamps. I

[[Page H6512]]

think that if you are going to have drug testing to get Federal 
assistance, then we ought to test all those people who get farm 
subsidies and see whether or not they are deserving of such assistance 
from the Federal Government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Then I saw some reference as to whether or not people 
who may have been convicted of a felony, what it would do to their 
qualifications, as well as their family qualifications. At one 
instance--I hope this is out of the bill--we talked about barring for 
life a person who may be convicted of a felony. That is not the kind of 
treatment our society ought to be visiting upon anybody who may or may 
not have made a mistake early on in their lives.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that there is much in this farm bill 
that ought to be supported, but I really believe these extraneous 
things ought to be taken out of this bill. We can't do it now, but I 
would hope when it gets to conference that those cooler heads will 
prevail, and we will have a compassionate piece of legislation that all 
of us can support.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, several unanimous consent 
requests have been offered and have been ruled out of order because 
they have not been pre-cleared by bipartisan leadership. It is my 
understanding that they have, in fact, been pre-cleared by the 
Democratic side.
  Would it be in order to ask the Republicans if they would pre-clear 
the unanimous consent requests so that we can vote up or down on a 
clean CR?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As indicated in section 956 of the House 
Rules and Manual, it is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the 
Chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under the 
Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is 
remaining, and whether the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to 
close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 
minute remaining, and the gentlelady from North Carolina has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to 
conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican government 
shutdown. It is the right thing to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that 
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding us 
additional time. It is important, I think, that we be heard on these 
issues.
  One of the reasons why we are so passionate about reopening the 
government is because this government shutdown is hurting people, and 
it is hurting the most vulnerable people in our society the most.
  One of the things that has troubled me about the direction the 
Republican leadership has taken in this Congress is that it has become 
unfashionable to worry about the poor and the vulnerable in this 
people's House of Representatives. Time and time and time again, my 
friends seek to balance the budget by cutting programs that help the 
most vulnerable. The $40 billion cut in SNAP will throw 3.8 million 
poor people off the program, it will throw children off the program, it 
will throw working people off the program.
  A lot of the people--contrary to what my friends say--who are on SNAP 
work for a living, they work full time. If you are earning minimum wage 
working full time, you still qualify for SNAP.
  There are people in this country who are hurting, who are depending 
upon us to be there, to make sure that there is a social safety net 
that will make sure that people don't fall through the cracks.
  One of the reasons we object to this nutrition provision in the farm 
bill is because it will hurt people--it will hurt people. We were sent 
here to help people. This used to be a bipartisan issue. Democrats and 
Republicans need to join together on this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote 
``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to see the government reopen 
also. We have sent many pieces of legislation over to the Senate, but 
the Senate has refused to act on them. We hope very much to get the 
government open again.
  We are not opposed to helping the truly needy in this country. We 
want to help those people. We believe by reforming the legislation 
related to food stamps that we will be able to save the program for the 
truly needy.
  Mr. Speaker, negotiations are an absolute necessity in a divided 
government, and conference committees provide an avenue for the House 
and Senate to meet and resolve policy differences.

                              {time}  1515

  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, to 
provide a motion to go to conference on the farm bill so we can move 
the reauthorization process forward.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 380 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, 
     with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, 
     shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the pending 
     question shall be, without intervention of any point of 
     order, whether the House shall recede from its amendment and 
     concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
     considered as read. The question shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the question of 
     receding from the House amendment and concurring in the 
     Senate amendment without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in section 4 of 
     this resolution.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has 
     no substantive legislative or policy implications 
     whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. 
     Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 
     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated,

[[Page H6513]]

     control of the time passes to the Member who led the 
     opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, 
     because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to 
     the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Maryland seek recognition?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on either side of the 
aisle have stated their preference for, as the gentlelady from North 
Carolina said, opening the government. They want to open the government 
as soon as possible and would vote for a clean bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have that vote right now. I would like to give my 
colleagues the opportunity to be heard right now in this Chamber and 
show the American people whether they want to reopen the government 
today or not.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result, I request that this vote be conducted by a 
rollcall under clause 2 of House rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those in favor of the yeas and nays will 
rise and be counted.
  A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  In response to the gentleman from Maryland, under clause 2(a) of rule 
XX, a record vote is conducted by electronic device unless the Speaker 
directs otherwise. This vote will be conducted by electronic device.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Does that mean if you ruled that we would take the vote in 
the manner in which I requested, that we would do so?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the Speaker's discretion, and the 
Chair advises that this vote will be conducted by electronic device.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 193, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 543]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     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)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     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 (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     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
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     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
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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--19

     Bachmann
     Clay
     Coble
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Jeffries
     Jordan
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pelosi
     Runyan
     Rush
     Scalise
     Slaughter
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. GARCIA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BRADY of Texas and MEEHAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 189, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page H6514]]

                             [Roll No. 544]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     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 (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     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
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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--19

     Bachmann
     Clay
     Coble
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Jeffries
     Jordan
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pelosi
     Runyan
     Rush
     Scalise
     Slaughter
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1551

  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:
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during roll No. 544, on 
agreeing to H. Res. 380. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''

                          ____________________