[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1485-H1501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2014
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 465, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2642) 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, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
January 27, 2014, at page H1269.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 30
minutes.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek
recognition?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to
the conference report?
Mr. PETERSON. No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this has been a long and seemingly epic
journey that the House Agriculture Committee has been upon, and Mr.
Peterson, myself, our colleagues, literally 3 years, actually 4, when
you consider the beginning hearings under then-Chairman Peterson to
start this process.
We have all discussed the details. We will discuss the details more
in greater length in just a moment on this final conference report that
reflects the net result of both the Senate and House work.
But I would say this. Whatever your feelings might be about the
policy issues involved within the bill, understand, this formal
conference that has now come to a conclusion, soon, I hope, to be
ratified by the body, reflects at the committee level, at the floor
level in the House, and, I think, in the conference level, how
legislation should be put together.
Many people criticize us and this body as dysfunctional. But if they
look at all of the amendments we considered, every time we took the
farm bill up in the committee, all of the debate, all of the
discussion, if they consider the amazing amount of amendments we
considered on the floor of the United States House and all the debates
and the discussion and the votes, if they take note of how long and how
much effort the principals and the conferees put into putting this
conference report together, they would understand that this bill, while
everyone may not agree with every line, every word, every policy in it,
this bill reflects, unlike almost any that have been done for years,
how it should be done--good men and women of different opinions working
to get to a final product.
I hope this reflects a change in how we will do our business here
across the board. I am proud of what we have done, and I am proud of
how we have done it. I am proud of the reforms and savings. I am proud
of my ranking member, and all my colleagues who have been involved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, as the chairman said, after nearly 4 years of work, the House
is finally considering the 2014 farm bill conference report. It has
been a challenging and, at times, frustrating process, I think
everybody will agree, but through it, the Ag Committee has persevered,
and we did what we have always done. We worked together.
The report before us today represents a compromise. I know this is
rare in Washington, but that is what is needed to actually get
something done around this place. I didn't get everything I wanted. The
chairman didn't get everything he wanted. That is how the compromise
works.
For example, there has been a lot of discussion about dairy, but we
are moving away from the old dairy program to a new program that I
think is much more sensible, that has market signals in it to deal with
overproduction. The only question I have is whether they are going to
be strong enough. We will find out as we go through the process.
In the commodity title, I am still disappointed we didn't vote on
planted acres. I think that would have been a smart thing to do, but it
wasn't to be.
At the end of the day, I believe my reservations are outweighed by
the need to provide a long-term certainty for agriculture and nutrition
programs and the many positive improvements and reforms included in the
final bill.
Among other things, the conference report will protect and improve
the crop insurance system. That is probably the most important safety
net. It continues current sugar policy, streamlines conservation
programs so that we can continue to preserve our natural resources,
provides disaster assistance for livestock producers, applies
conservation protections to crop insurance, and recognizes the growing
consumer demand for fresh fruits, vegetables, local foods and organics.
In closing, I want to thank the chairman for his work and
congratulate him for working with us to get to a final conclusion here.
Also, for his Members, our Members, for their support and hanging in
there to get to this point.
[[Page H1486]]
I also want to thank the Agriculture Committee staff who have been
working so hard over these last years, night and day, through all these
different situations we have been in, and I will submit their names for
the Record.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this process has gone on too long. We need to
conclude it today. I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
committee staff
Agriculture Committee Democratic Staff: Andy Baker, Nathan
Fretz, Liz Friedlander, Keith Jones, Mary Knigge, Rob Larew,
Clark Ogilvie, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, Faye Smith; USDA
Detailee: Robert Stephenson; Intern: Lauren Becker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member
Peterson for all their hard work on this very difficult bill. I admire
their tenacity, and I admire their passion on issues dealing with
agriculture.
There are some good things in this bill, to be sure, but there are
some things that I simply cannot accept. I think as we discuss this
farm bill, that we should remind ourselves of a few simple facts, facts
like this:
Hunger exists in the United States of America. Not a single
congressional district in this country is hunger-free. Our food banks,
our food pantries, the people who are on the front lines in the fight
against hunger simply cannot do any more. They are stretched to the
limit.
One final fact. This bill will make hunger worse in America, not
better. If this bill passes, thousands and thousands of low-income
Americans will see their already meager food benefit shrink.
And for what? Why? To meet some arbitrary deficit reduction goal? To
pay the costs of the giveaways and the crop insurance program? To pay
for the sweetheart deals for the sushi rice growers and the peanut
farmers and God knows who else?
I know many of my colleagues would just like this whole farm bill
issue to go away. They want to pass a bill and forget about it and move
on to something else.
But, Mr. Speaker, the people who will be hurt by this bill aren't
going away. They can't forget about it and move on to something else
because they will suffer. They will have to make do with less food
tomorrow than they have today.
I have heard all the arguments trying to justify this $8.6 billion
cut in SNAP. Well, it is just a loophole, or it could have been a lot
worse, or the States should pick up the slack, or local governments or
churches or food banks or the tooth fairy.
Those arguments are easy to make from the comfort of our warm homes
and our full bellies, but they ring hollow to an elderly person who
will have to take their medicine on an empty stomach, or a child who
will have to skip a breakfast before going to school.
I think it is wrong, and I cannot support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my outstanding subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking
Member Peterson for putting in so much hard work and dedication and
getting where we are today, and I echo the ranking member's sentiments
to the staff. Thank you very much for everything that you have done.
After more than 3 years of being involved in the farm bill process, I
am proud to support a final product that not only greatly benefits
producers but deploys investments and jobs to rural America. Despite
our sharp regional differences, we prevailed in crafting commodity
programs that promote regional fairness by providing a strong safety
net that protects all producers from market risk.
We can finally provide relief to our cattlemen by permanently
reauthorizing disaster assistance programs after years of hardship.
Rural development funding will bring critical investments to our rural
communities, while conservation and forestry programs will preserve our
natural resources for years to come.
While I am pleased with the farm bill before us today, I am
disappointed that we left some important issues on the table like
reforming harmful GIPSA regulations and fixing Country of Origin
Labeling for the meat industry.
We could have gone further in relieving burdensome EPA regulations on
small farmers, and I believe that the environmental activists in the
Senate had far too much input.
Even though I believe we could have done more, I am proud of the
conservative reforms we made to the food stamp program by eliminating
waste and loopholes, setting the stage for work requirements. The
Agriculture Committee accomplished the tough goal of cutting billions
from our budget by repealing or consolidating dozens of programs.
I appreciate the patience of all of our Arkansas producers and rural
communities through this process.
I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this farm bill conference report.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
committee report. There are a lot of reasons why, but first I would
like to commend the chairman and the ranking members of both the House
and the Senate Ag Committees and my fellow conferees and the staff for
all the hard work that went into reaching this agreement.
While this is not a perfect bill--there never is--this agreement is
the result of more than 4 years of bipartisan negotiations, two
marathon committee meeting markups, multiple floor debates. As a matter
of fact, this bill almost reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day''
because it seems to come back again and again.
For my home State of California, the leading agricultural State in
the Nation, this farm bill is a dramatic investment in many of the
specialty crops for research, for market production and the development
programs which benefit our vegetable and fruit producers, which produce
over half the Nation's supply.
These programs not only help my constituents produce the safest and
most nutritious fruits and vegetables that we eat throughout the
Nation, but also throughout the world.
Just as important for my district are the disaster relief programs
that help farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and producers through these
difficult times. Many may not be aware, but California is facing the
driest year on record, which jeopardizes both food production and jobs
in my district.
This bill contains programs that provide help when disaster strikes,
from drilling wells to providing seed or direct assistance to growers
or cattlemen who have been hurt by this devastating drought.
While I support the conference committee report, I am disappointed
that we did not take the opportunity to resolve the meat labeling
issues that threaten our beef and poultry producers, and our important
trading partners, Canada and Mexico, who are deemed critical and are
dealing with us in the World Trade Organization. I have currently
drafted legislation on a bipartisan basis to try to fix this labeling
issue once and for all.
This debate, though, has dragged on for way too long. Let's give
farmers and ranchers and dairy producers the certainty that they
deserve through a 5-year farm bill. Now is the time to get this farm
bill done by passing this conference committee report.
{time} 0930
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time and for the leadership that he
has shown on the nutrition title and for the plight of hunger
throughout our country. It is commendable.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a few farm bills in the past. I
used to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. I certainly
appreciate how very difficult it is to put together a bipartisan farm
bill with so many different moving parts.
I have all the respect and admiration for the leadership on the
committee,
[[Page H1487]]
but I also sense that we have reached a point of fatigue and
exhaustion. People just want this farm bill to go away after years of
it being worked on, and I appreciate that, too.
But we are only given one opportunity every 5 or, in this case, 7
years to reform farm policy to make it better, to make it better for
our family farmers, to make it more responsible for the American
taxpayer, to make production agriculture work for all Americans, and I
am afraid that this farm bill, yet again, pulls up short.
I would beseech my colleagues to take a little additional time to
work on reform measures that do make sense. Rather than looking at
another $8.6 billion in cuts to the nutrition title on top of previous
cuts that have already been had, let's look at some of these subsidy
programs.
I am afraid that the bill before us today maintains huge taxpayer
subsidies that go to a few but very large agribusinesses at the expense
of our family farmers around the country. It is going to lead to
greater consolidation and production agriculture. It is going to
continue to drive up land values. It is going to make it harder for new
beginning farmers to enter the occupation. It is not responsible to
these family farmers, and it is certainly not responsible to the
American taxpayer.
We have got historically high commodity target prices in this bill so
any slight dip is going to mean huge payments going out in the future.
We have got the multiple entity rule now that we worked on in the
previous farm bill being rolled back in this one. We have got payment
limitation caps now being increased rather than brought down to where
the will of this Congress was last year when we had that debate on the
floor.
And while it is commendable that we are getting rid of the direct
payment program, which was not justifiable, most of that money is being
shifted now into the crop insurance program which, what I feel, is
overly generous premium subsidy crop insurance subsidies to producers,
which has the potential of taking further risk out of production
decisions.
But we are also telling private crop insurance companies, We are
going to guarantee you a 14 percent profit margin. We are going to pay
your entire administrative and operating expenses. And, by the way, you
are going to bear very little risk in offering these policies. The
American taxpayer will still bear that risk. There is not a business in
the world that wouldn't sign up for that offer. So why are we doing
that in this farm bill?
Representative Petri and I last year offered a commonsense modicum
reform of the crop insurance program, asking these crop insurance
companies to put a little more skin in the game. We understand it is a
valuable risk management tool that needs to be there for producers, but
this goes overboard with it.
Then finally, we have got a domestic cotton program that has gotten
us into trouble with Brazil. If the average taxpayer knew that we, for
the last 4 years, have funneled out $150 million worth of taxpayer
subsidies going to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers they would be
livid. And yet this bill does not fix that cotton problem, and now it
is up to Brazil whether they want to level economic sanctions against
us.
More work needs to happen, and, unfortunately, this bill pulls up
short.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our hardest working
subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the farm bill.
This legislation provides much-needed reforms. It is fiscally
responsible, saving billions in mandatory spending, promoting market-
based solutions, and streamlining and consolidating more than 100
programs.
We have eliminated direct payments, which farmers received whether
there were good times or bad, and replaced them with a safety net that
provides help only when farmers need it.
The bill includes the most significant reform to the food stamp
program since welfare was reformed in 1996.
While I am personally disappointed that we didn't fix the COOL and
GIPSA issues--and I am committed to continuing to work on those--I do
believe that this bill provides a balance of opportunity and security,
and it strengthens our Nation's agriculture safety net for years to
come.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the safety net, vote
``yes'' for these modest reforms to food stamps, pass this conference
report. Give our farmers and ranchers across this country the 5 years
of stability and security they need to execute their business plans to
allow them to continue to provide the American people with the most
affordable and abundant food and fiber supply in the developing world.
Vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I guess for some people, you just can't do
enough. I would argue, respectfully, to a lot of my colleagues that the
work that has gone on on both sides of the aisle over the last 2 years
is actually pretty exemplary.
The farm bill is always a difficult bill to pass. I believe the last
one was vetoed a couple of times, and it had to be overwritten.
This bill, we are not at that point. But we have had a lot of bumps
along the road, and it could be better. It could be better. But I have
never yet seen legislation as exactly what I would preferably like to
be voting on at the end of the day.
We make huge strides in this bill. There were draconian cuts to the
SNAP and food stamp program that are no longer in here. There were
onerous requirements and incentives to get people off food stamps that
are no longer in here.
And for those that say people are automatically going to be cut as a
result of this, that is not accurate. If the States step up and
actually put $20 towards the heating assistance for these low-income
folks that hopefully need that, they don't get a reduced benefit. And,
yes, it is a reduced benefit. They still qualify for their base benefit
in this bill. Moreover, if they just bring their heating and cooling
bills in, they can still get the expanded benefit; it just requires a
little more diligence. Hopefully, it puts some faith in America that
their food stamp and SNAP programs are going to those who really need
it.
As far as the subsidies go--hey, maybe we should change that; we
should work on that some more. There will be another farm bill in 4 or
5 years. But we have made huge strides. We get rid of the direct
payments program. That is monumental, folks. We have been trying to do
that for 20 years.
The subsidies, the milk program, it is a totally new one. We are on a
marginal insurance program. I think America understands that type of
thing.
We have made huge strides here, and there are so many good things.
For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I mean,
at the end of the day, it is pretty imperative that we have made huge
strides in the specialty crop provisions, the organic provisions. We
have done great with market access promotion programs. We have made it
so that American farmers continue to produce the best food and fiber
with a safety net that makes sure that the people in this country get
the food they need and deserve and can do the best economically on the
global trade scene.
I think this is a great opportunity. People here should be voting
``yes'' on this bill after all the hard bipartisan work.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I deeply respect my friend and
colleague from Oregon, I have a slightly different perspective on this
because I think the bill that is before us today is absolutely the
least that could be done to get the bill passed. It has a number of
items I do support, like specialty crops, which I have been working on
for some time. I am pleased that organics have an opportunity to get to
crop insurance.
But this bill, as I say, takes, allegedly, the savings from direct
payments that have been opposed for years and plows them back into an
enriched crop insurance program. It cuts $6 billion for conservation.
Yes, there are some improvements in terms of administration, but at the
end of the day, it cuts $6 billion when land and water is under
pressure and needs it the most. This is shortsighted.
[[Page H1488]]
It is very likely going to cost a lot more in the long run for the
reasons my friend from Wisconsin pointed out in terms of setting these
targets higher. It is more generous in terms of rejecting a provision
that was included in both the House and the Senate version to limit
payments to individual farms to $50,000. The conference committee
increases the limit to $125,000 and reopens a loophole closed in both
the House and Senate bills, allowing the payments to be collected by
multiple people.
It is just one more example of where the conference committee that I
think had one meeting and sort of massaged these things to put the
pieces together to secure a majority on the floor, is not, in any
stretch of the imagination, in the best interests of most farmers,
certainly not for the environment, and nor is it for the American
taxpayers.
I respectfully urge its rejection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Womack) who has been very focused on these critical
issues, especially those involving livestock.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to offer my
congratulations to the chairman, to his ranking member, and to my
colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of the committee members,
for their diligent work and for coming up with this committee report.
This was not easy, to say the least.
That said, Mr. Speaker, because of the Senate's ``my way or the
highway'' attitude, we are considering a conference report that does
nothing to address an out-of-control agency, GIPSA, from imposing on
American companies regulations that go well beyond congressional
intent. Because of the Senate's all-or-nothing approach, we are
considering a conference report that will subject American industries
and companies to retaliatory tariffs.
For me, it would be easy to vote against this conference report. But
unlike my Senate counterparts, I recognize that, in a divided
government, each side must work to find common ground. Ultimately, this
report, like many of the other bipartisan agreements that have been
signed into law, moves the ball forward by making much-needed reforms
to Federal programs and reducing spending. That is why, in the end, I
will support it.
I am hopeful, however, Mr. Speaker, that the House Appropriations
Committee will do everything in its power to fix some of these
mistakes. I, as a member of that committee, will fight to rein in
GIPSA, and I will work to fix the Country of Origin Labeling
requirements.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Democratic Leader
Pelosi for her confidence in me in appointing me as her representative
to the farm bill committee.
I thank Representatives Peterson and Lucas and Senators Stabenow and
Cochran for their leadership in negotiating this conference report.
Throughout this process, it was my goal to ensure a fair and balanced
farm bill. While I do not agree with some of the provisions of this
conference bill, I firmly believe it is a good compromise.
Given how far apart we were when this conference began, I am pleased
Members on both sides of the aisle and across the Chamber were able to
reach a consensus and show the American people Congress can work
together.
The agreement rejects categorical eligibility, something that we have
talked about for some time. The $8.6 billion savings in SNAP over 10
years--over 10 years--comes from a change in LIHEAP policy that would
shrink benefits for approximately 850,000 households in 16 States. It
does not eliminate a qualified household from access to SNAP, which was
an important consideration on the difficult road to reach a compromise
that prevents devastating cuts and changes to this critically needed
program.
This agreement also expands economic investment in low-income, urban,
and rural communities. It provides certainty and sound agricultural
policies for America's farmers and ranchers.
Passing the farm bill has always been a bipartisan endeavor, and this
conference committee report proves it is still possible for Congress to
work through its differences and produce a balanced bill that meets the
needs of the American people.
We have negotiated the farm bill for the last 2 years. It is now time
to move forward. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me and vote
``yes'' on this bipartisan, bicameral conference agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the
2014 Farm Bill is truly a compromise. It's not the bill I would write
on my own. It fails to adequately tackle the hunger and poverty that
stalks our country from inner cities to rural towns and suburbs across
America. However, it is a genuine compromise and represents important
improvements to our federal nutrition programs. We have kept SNAP
intact and rejected every one of the harsh House provisions that would
have ended food assistance to nearly 4 million people.
I am still deeply disappointed we were not able to make new
investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in my district and
around this country put food on the table. Millions remain unemployed
and unable to provide for their families, and others who work in low-
wage jobs or live on retirement income rely on SNAP to afford barely
enough food.
Despite this, I believe this legislation will strengthen and improve
SNAP and the many other nutrition programs authorized under the Farm
Bill. SNAP has been vital in assisting millions of families and
countless communities cope with the Great Recession. Not only has the
program responded quickly to increased needs, but it has also delivered
benefits with ever-increased accuracy despite higher caseloads and
strained State administrative budgets. While we look forward to a
strengthening economy, which provides more jobs, we expect a strong
SNAP will remain critically needed.
This bill reauthorizes the program and makes some modest
improvements. Despite expanding to respond to the increased need
arising from the Great Recession, SNAP maintained historically low
payment error and trafficking rates. The farm bill tightens eligibility
in response to concerns about the way some States calculate benefits
and media reports of unusual circumstances involving SNAP recipients,
invests in fraud detection and prevention activities, improves retailer
operations, and makes a number of small but important program changes.
I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the key
provisions of the nutrition title. First, I want to address the one
significant cut in SNAP benefits that is included in the title. We have
curtailed a practice that about a third of the States use to raise SNAP
benefits for some families and simplify administration of the program.
CBO says that about 850,000 families in those States will lose about
$90 a month because of the cut. Though a painful loss for these
families, the change fixes an oversight in the SNAP benefit calculation
that has allowed some States to let households deduct more income than
warranted by their actual expenses. They do this by giving SNAP
households with no heating or cooling expenses a token LIHEAP payment
of $1 or less in order to leverage a heating and cooling deduction,
which raises their SNAP benefits. For decades, the receipt of LIHEAP
has automatically qualified households for a standard utility allowance
within the shelter deduction calculation. This is the right thing to do
when the LIHEAP program already has determined that the household pays
heating or cooling bills. But these States with very small LIHEAP
payments have allowed some of these families to receive larger benefits
than their circumstances warrant under the SNAP formula.
Congress, however, did not intend to give households without heating
or cooling expenses a deduction for such expenses. While I would
strongly prefer to reinvest all of the savings from ending this
practice back into meeting the needs of struggling households, it is
reasonable to address this issue. This bill does so by requiring that a
LIHEAP payment must be at least $20 for the State to use the LIHEAP
connection to confer the SUA.
This change will lower SNAP benefits to 850,000 low-income households
by $8.55 billion over ten years. This will not be an easy adjustment
for these households, but it will establish a stronger and more
credible link between the traditional LIHEAP program and SNAP benefits.
As a conferee, it was very important for us that the people who really
deserve to deduct heating or cooling costs have a chance to do so, and
the change we are making to fix a narrow problem not disrupt the
original purpose of the LIHEAP linkage in promoting efficiency and
ensuring households get all the benefits for which they qualify.
This is why we gave the Secretary some flexibility here. I expect
that the Department will work closely with State agencies to ensure
households that now receive the SUA on the basis of a negligible LIHEAP
payment will have the opportunity to clarify they actually do pay for
heating or cooling, and this process
[[Page H1489]]
will not be burdensome. Some States have targeted these small LIHEAP
payments to households in public housing that are highly unlikely to
incur a separate charge for home heating or cooling. But other States
have given a one dollar payment to most, if not all SNAP households. We
know that a large proportion of these households actually do pay a
separate charge for utilities and need the SUA to get an adequate level
of benefits.
I also want to make clear this change is designed to affect only
households in the 16 States that have provided a nominal LIHEAP benefit
for purposes of qualifying households for a larger deduction. We got
assurances from USDA that in the States that do not use the current
rule in this way, SNAP participants would neither experience a cut in
benefits, nor would there be a change in the way their income, shelter
deduction, and benefits are calculated. This is an important
implementation issue. States that, like my own State of Ohio and the
majority of all States, do not provide a nominal LIHEAP benefit should
be able to continue the way they determine eligibility for the SUA. Nor
should low-income Ohioans be asked to do or verify anything differently
from what they do now. None of the savings in the bill comes from
reducing benefits for households that have LIHEAP payments that exceed
the new $20 threshold, so USDA must ensure State implementation of the
changes does not result in a benefit loss to a household legitimately
receiving LIHEAP.
Finally, I am concerned we may not have given States enough time to
make the change and protect households. States will have flexibility in
phasing in the provision for most participating households, but for new
applicants and households who need to reapply for SNAP in the coming
months, the provision is effective just 30 days after enactment, which
is a very quick time-frame for States to implement. Under SNAP
regulations, States will be protected from being cited for errors
during the first few months after enactment. I urge States and USDA to
not hold households accountable for receiving slightly higher benefits
because the short implementation timeframe has not given their State
ample opportunity to adjust their benefits properly. I'm proud of what
we have been able to accomplish as conferees to improve the program
without unduly burdening the struggling families that turn to SNAP in
times of need. We focused our reforms on the administration of SNAP,
and I'd like to highlight some of the areas where we tightened
eligibility to respond to some uncommon cases.
Over the last several years, there have been two reported instances
of SNAP participants winning the lottery and remaining on the program.
While a rare occurrence, and one that in many States already results in
disqualification, we included a provision to make sure it does not
happen again. We're focused on people winning a million dollars or some
other life-changing amount, not someone who nets a few hundred dollars
in scratch-off tickets that could very quickly be spent by paying
overdue bills or paying for overdue auto or home maintenance. In
implementing this provision, the Department should consider
``substantial'' to be truly extraordinary windfalls that will change
lifestyles rather than provide more modest gains. Another key
implementation issue is how the State discovers such winnings. Rather
than clog application and report forms with questions that will apply
to a negligible number of people, the bill requires State SNAP agencies
to establish relationships with any in-State gaming commissions, so
that the commissions will report any winnings that meet the threshold
USDA will establish. The State agency will apply the regular income and
asset tests to these households and the households will remain
ineligible until they meet these tests. We do not see any need for any
additional reporting by applicants or households, as the State-level
reporting should be accurate and sufficient.
The farm bill also clarifies rules around eligibility for felons.
People with criminal records fleeing from law enforcement and violating
their parole are not eligible for SNAP. The farm bill reiterates people
convicted of certain felonies such as murder and armed robbery who
violate their parole or probation are ineligible for benefits. And it
imposes a hard penalty on the families of those who do not comply--the
household of the ex-offender will see a significant drop in benefits
because the income and resources of the non-eligible member would still
be counted. While harsh to innocent family members who may have helped
their family member rehabilitate successfully by providing a place to
live, it represents no change in the law and is the way other
offenders, such as drug felons and those intentionally violating SNAP
rules are treated now. Ex-offenders who have served their time and
continue to comply with the conditions placed on their release, and who
are otherwise eligible for food assistance through SNAP, will be able
to apply for and receive assistance. Program participants should not
experience any change from our desire to reiterate current policy with
respect to fleeing felons. The SNAP eligibility and enrollment process
already solicits information from applicants about their fleeing felon
status and we anticipate those efforts will be not be disrupted or
changed as a result of this re-articulation of current rules.
Another area where the conferees worked hard to make improvements is
in the area of program integrity and fraud prevention.
The bill contains an important program integrity enhancement for
multiple requests for EBT card replacements. Participants can lose
cards. The cards may also be stolen or malfunction. Without a working
card, households can't buy food. We've become aware of a very small
number of households with more frequent requests for card replacement
and this raises program integrity issues. The bill requires USDA to set
a standard for excessive requests for card replacement and requires
States to seek explanations from households that exceed this
threshold as to why another card is needed prior to re-issuing a card.
Similarly, States may not require households to provide their
explanation in person or withhold the card based on the household's
explanation. That requires following the procedures for an intentional
program violation. Because of the critical importance of maintaining
access to food assistance, the bill requires that States promptly give
individuals a chance to explain. We expect USDA to monitor this
closely; any delay in working with the household is a day they do not
have benefits to purchase food.
There are many reasons why replacement cards are legitimately and
urgently needed--people may not understand the card was reusable, they
may confuse a PIN problem with a card problem, they may be victims of
theft, or they may simply lose their card. These things can happen to
anyone, but some people are particularly vulnerable. Accordingly, this
bill requires protections for vulnerable populations such as persons
with disabilities, homeless persons, and crime victims.
This provision does not empower States to use this process to
terminate participation or impose undue new burdens on households. SNAP
rules set out procedural standards for acting on evidence of
intentional program violations--standards that balance the pursuit of
program integrity with fundamental legal rights of accused persons. If
a State believes its evidence indicates an intentional program
violation in this area, it must replace the card and use its
disqualification process to take any further action.
We've provided additional resources to USDA to improve integrity
efforts. We applaud USDA's strong commitment to rooting out fraud in
the program, but with a significant increase in the number of stores
accepting SNAP, USDA must continue to improve its retailer monitoring
efforts. This bill gives the Department additional resources to improve
its technology to take advantage of innovations like data mining, which
can reveal retailer redemption patterns and help identify stores that
may be abusing the program. We expect USDA to focus on data analysis
and other smart tools to maintain the high standards of compliance in
the program. Again, this is an example of the conferees focusing on the
improving the administrative side of the program, rather than placing
onerous burdens, like photo identification requirements, on retailers
or participants.
We've also provided funds to encourage State and federal partnerships
to address retailer fraud through pilot projects. States selected for
the pilot need to show they have committed resources to recipient
trafficking and have a proven record of accurate determinations of
fraud. In other words, States that have been successful in identifying
and reducing documented fraud should be given a priority in partnering
with USDA on retailer fraud.
There has been a lot of attention given to the relationship between
SNAP and work. We know many households on SNAP have a working member
and some States operate promising employment and training programs.
Earlier versions of the farm bill in each house had widely differing
approaches to the issue of work and, as a conferee, I'm proud we worked
diligently to find areas of agreement and come up with some important
reforms in the program without cutting people off for failure to find a
job or imposing some other hardship on households.
While the majority of SNAP participants who can work are working, we
want to do what we can to help those who are able to work but cannot
find a job. SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) has allowed States to
provide services to adults facing the three month time limit as well as
individuals seeking to improve their employability, but it is time to
evaluate what really works and encourage States to build upon
successes.
So we have improved and increased funding for SNAP E&T. The bill
provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative and promising
State employment and training programs. These pilots can be drawn from
SNAP E&T
[[Page H1490]]
components, but can also include efforts to help those who already are
working by providing the kinds of supportive services, like child care
or transportation assistance, that often are insurmountable expenses to
those with low-paying jobs. The conferees expect that States will
expand their SNAP E&T activities or test new ideas, not use the funds
to fund what they already are doing, or remove State dollars from their
SNAP E&T programs.
Over time, SNAP E&T has served 3 different goals: a test of the
willingness of the able-bodied to perform work activities as a
condition of assistance, a means for some childless adults to exceed
the 3-month time limit via workfare, and a way to enhance the
employment prospects of SNAP recipients by improving their skills and
abilities. Pilots will test approaches to meeting each of these goals
and provide us with crucial information about the most effective
approaches.
As conferees we thought a rigorous evaluation is a critical component
of the pilot projects. With so many SNAP recipients who find jobs on
their own, a key question is how do we know if the program and services
the State offered made a difference. States that cannot guarantee they
will participate fully in the evaluation and provide the necessary data
for the evaluation should not be selected to participate. To ensure we
learn something, we also have made the new money we provide available
to the evaluation and for the State and federal costs of running the
pilot. I am especially interested in learning about the most effective
ways for States to assess the needs of SNAP participants upfront and to
match those needs to the right education and training programs and
other supportive services that will make a difference for that
individual. This is information we do not have now and could help
States to target limited resources to really make a difference in
peoples' lives.
Finally, I applaud the conference committee leadership for designing
a pilot project that gives States resources without creating punitive
incentives to force people who cannot find work off the program. I
know, however, some States may choose more punitive approaches under a
theory that exposing a family to the possibility of losing their
benefits will spur additional work effort. I do not support this view,
but States are allowed under the pilots to sanction individuals who
fail to comply with any work requirements under the same rules and
terms as under the current SNAP E&T program. In addition, because we
have added unsubsidized work as an allowable activity under the pilot,
we have asked the Secretary to issue guidance about the very limited
circumstances under which a person who is working could be sanctioned
for losing his or her job. The last thing we intend is for people who
are already doing what we want--that is, working--to face losing some
or all of their SNAP benefits because they lose that job.
Beyond the pilot projects, we are very interested in learning what
works in all States in getting SNAP participants the skills and
training they need to get and keep a well-paying job. That's why we
will require States to report on the results of their E&T efforts. USDA
is charged to use this new information to look at how this program can
achieve more lasting gains in self-sufficiency. The conferees also
recognize SNAP participants are among the poorest and least skilled
members of society. We do not expect it will be easy for all of them to
quickly find employment, especially in the aftermath of the recession.
We expect a study would consider some interventions--such as career and
technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains over the long
haul, but participants would not immediately find those jobs because
they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To that end,
USDA's study needs to recognize getting better jobs may require getting
more training, so delayed, but enduring improvements, are important.
I've been focused on changes to the program that affect participants.
But SNAP is a program that helps both hungry households and the food
industry. This farm bill continues to modernize the program, with a
number of improvements for retailers.
One thing we were able to do is take important steps to ensure SNAP
remains compatible with the evolving food retail landscape. To this
end, we authorize the Secretary to test the use of mobile technologies
in SNAP--things like smart phone apps that have become increasingly
common in the larger retail world. This may be especially important to
farmers markets and vegetable stands that are unable to install
traditional EBT-processing machines. But allowing additional ways to
accept benefits must not come at the expense of program integrity. We
all share a deep commitment to ensuring only authorized retailers
participate in the program and sufficient protections are in place to
prevent trafficking. This provision reflects that priority. For
example, we start with a pilot project to test the idea of using mobile
technology, include protections for recipients, and prohibit any food
price markups. We expect USDA to take ironclad measures to prevent
fraud and require a report on the feasibility of the technology before
allowing it to be used more widely than the pilot. USDA is to be
commended for the good work it has done in reducing fraud in the
program, and we expect the same attention to program integrity to be
employed in testing new technologies before embracing them in SNAP.
This bill also allows pilot projects to test the feasibility of
allowing the online purchase of food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a
growing food industry trend toward online transactions with delivery.
While allowing the ordering and purchase of food online is one way to
make the program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting
to a store that can redeem benefits, again we worked hard to ensure the
high program integrity standards apply to any new way of redeeming
benefits. We expect USDA to aggressively address fraud for the same
reasons set out above and require, in the bill, the agency halt any
expansion of online transactions if integrity issues cannot be
resolved. While the provision makes clear that delivery fees associated
with online purchases may not be paid with SNAP benefits, I also expect
USDA to set standards for the fees to ensure no adverse effect on food
security. After all, low-income households rely on SNAP because they
are unable to purchase enough food--to divert other scarce financial
resources to pay delivery fees undermines the accessibility offered by
the online option.
I would like to point out these new mobile and online technologies,
common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo identification or
other biometric information to authorize payments and maintain
integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP retail
transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. Thus, I
urge USDA to stop approving misguided efforts at the State level to
require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of
purchase. Technology has made these conditions on the use of benefits
obsolete in the retail environment, and so they should be eliminated
from the SNAP retail environment as well.
Benefits have been issued successfully on electronic cards for years,
but there have been rare occasions when the cards, or the processing
systems that deduct benefits from the cards, fail to operate. In these
cases, program participants may be in even greater need of assistance
and must be able to use their benefits to purchase food. This requires
the capacity to quickly and efficiently issue manual vouchers to
affected individuals. We expect USDA to issue rules that make it quick
and easy to switch to manual vouchers for automated systems failures or
natural disasters. Critical to successfully providing an alternative is
establishing clear criteria that allow State officials to apply
immediately in a variety of particular situations. The threat to
program integrity posed by physical vouchers stems from vouchers issued
when individual cards fail to work, not when there is an intelligible,
systemic reason for the problem.
I commend my fellow conferees for working in a bipartisan way to
identify areas of the program that could be strengthened in a way that
minimizes administrative burden and does not impose a hardship on
participating households. We've made some changes that will improve
eligibility determinations and the quality of our research.
For example, we've taken steps to ensure federal funds used to inform
Americans about SNAP cannot be used in inappropriate ways. Let's be
clear, USDA has done a fine and necessary job getting information about
SNAP to low-income households struggling to put food on the table. The
program cannot be effective if those who may need it are unaware of its
existence or believe they are not eligible. With the program's name
change from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP, there was a great need for
accurate information to be disseminated. Almost all of USDA's efforts
have been appreciated and appropriate, but there have been reports of
some ill-advised efforts, such as collaborating with the Mexican
consulate and reimbursing community members who sign up eligible people
on a per person or ``bounty'' basis. These were neither best practices,
nor were they widespread, so we prohibited them in the farm bill. But
in reality, many low-income households that are eligible are not
signing up, and we know that is because, in part, individuals are
unaware of the program or have misconceptions about it. For example,
seniors often fear if they apply for assistance, they are taking away
assistance from someone else. But that is just not true, and we need to
be able to give these seniors truthful information so they can make the
choice that is right for them. In this bill, Congress continues to
support this kind of information sharing, while clarifying aggressive
recruitment, including recruitment outside of the United States, is not
permissible. Recruitment is trying to persuade or convince someone who
has made an informed decision not to apply to change his or her mind.
That hasn't
[[Page H1491]]
been a permissible activity and the bill simply codifies that practice.
Providing people with positive information about the program and the
benefits of applying or assisting them to navigate the complicated
application process is not recruitment and is still allowed. We expect
the agency will continue to provide necessary information while
ensuring education funds are used appropriately.
Another change we made to strengthen SNAP was to give States access
to more tools to double check the information SNAP applicants provide.
The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support
Enforcement oversees such a tool: the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH), which primarily is for State child support agencies to learn
important information about the employment of noncustodial parents who
live or work in other States. Currently States are allowed to use this
database for some other purposes, including verifying employment and
earnings of SNAP recipients. We have, in this bill, required States
make use of the data available through the NDNH at the time a household
is certified for SNAP, to help the State determine eligibility and the
correct level of benefits for households applying for SNAP. We expect
the Secretary to issue guidance to help States determine the most cost-
effective and efficient ways to make use of this data source. For
example, it makes no sense for States to pay to match every individual
in every applicant household. There is no reasonable chance an 80 year-
old disabled person or a four year old child has unreported earnings.
The Secretary should work with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to explore ways to limit the cost of the match to State
agencies and maximize payment accuracy.
The bill also codifies the existing State practice of verifying
immigrant participation in the program by using the federal Systemic
Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE). It's a commonsense
way for States to determine eligibility that does not require a
household to track down paperwork or fill out unnecessary forms. We
expect this to have no impact on client eligibility or responsibility
since the data match is an administrative procedure. No other changes
to immigrant eligibility have been made.
We fully expect State and local agencies, institutions and
organizations that receive funding through USDA to study, evaluate or
otherwise engage with SNAP will cooperate with USDA's own researchers.
Some of these entities may have justifiable concerns in this day and
age about sharing some data, especially private information about
participant households. This bill includes a provision that explicitly
requires cooperation, but ensures that it does not violate any
important existing requirements, such as the personal privacy of SNAP
participants.
I'd like to turn for a moment to other nutrition provisions in the
bill.
Since 2001, Puerto Rico has been allowed to issue to 25 percent of
households' SNAP benefit as cash, rather than in a form that can only
be spent on food. While program rules require the cash also be spent
for food, some cash is spent on other household necessities, though
there is little evidence that any cash is spent on non-essential items.
This is because the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) plays a unique
role in Puerto Rico's safety net because other programs available in
States (such as TANF and SSI) do not play a significant role on the
island. Puerto Rico is already shortchanged on nutrition assistance--if
NAP operated as SNAP does in the States, participation would be 15
percent higher and federal costs would be over 22 percent higher. Some
have argued this cash allotment should be eliminated, a change that
would be disruptive, and over which there has been little engagement
with local stakeholders or affected parties. So the farm bill requires
a study on the impact of eliminating the cash portion of the nutrition
grant, and assuming such a change is feasible, gradually phases it out.
But, we included an important protection for poor Puerto Ricans. The
Secretary can exempt categories of participants if he or she has
determined the elimination of the cash portion would cause undue
hardship. The entire NAP caseload could be exempted if the study shows
the policy change would have significant adverse effects.
Another provision in the bill requires USDA to pilot different ways
to deliver food assistance to needy people in the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Here we expect USDA to look at
different ways to structure food aid based on the structure of SNAP,
but recognizing many of the SNAP administrative requirements may not be
appropriate for such a small government and isolated population.
There is a wide range of options between the current block grant and
full SNAP implementation. For example, we expect any program would be
run with integrity, but this does not necessarily mean the SNAP quality
control review process--one of the most rigorous to which any public
program is subject--is the only way to review payment accuracy in the
CNMI. In the area of benefit issuance, SNAP has highly detailed
standards for Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. This approach
works well in the United States, but may not be appropriate for the
CNMI. SNAP has very explicit rules about how benefits are determined
and recognizes assorted expenses as deductions from income. CNMI may be
better able to run a program with greater standardization of benefits.
None of this is to argue for any specific approach. Rather, we expect
USDA to look for ways to improve nutrition assistance to the residents
of the CNMI in a manner that its government can deliver.
As I said at the start, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. I'm
not pleased we had to reduce food assistance to any low-income
households. But overall, we have continued the long tradition in the
Agriculture Committee of bipartisan support for the program. It has
taken us two years and countless hours to come to a compromise over a
wide range of complex agriculture and nutrition issues while still
contributing to reducing the federal deficit. This farm bill is an
important step in dealing with the most important food and agricultural
issues facing the Nation today. I again, voice my support for this
language and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this compromise bill,
although I congratulate the people for working very hard on it. But the
change in the heat and eat option is not just a little technical
change; it is a change that has a freezing, chilling impact on every
single SNAP recipient in Wisconsin. It not only increases bureaucracy,
it decreases SNAP benefits to Wisconsin families whose benefits were
cut already in November.
{time} 0945
I am deeply concerned about the concrete hurt, hunger, and, quite
frankly, the frigid cold that we impose today on thousands of low-
income American households, including seniors, children, and the
disabled. As many as 255,000 SNAP cases in Wisconsin will be affected
by this change.
How do I explain this to the women, children, seniors, and disabled
in households how this ``technical change'' is minor when they stand to
lose $90 a month in benefits? When you consider what they lost in
November, $90 a month to a poor family is not a ``technical change.''
It is a lot of money. It is more than $1,000 a year.
The price of food is not going to go down, nor is the price of fuel,
nor is the purchasing power of the poor going to go up. SNAP benefits
already do not meet nutritional needs throughout the month, and this
change will mean that real food will be off real tables and out of the
stomachs of current recipients. The proposed cut on top of ARRA
resulted in a 9 percent drop in benefits allocation to Wisconsin. It is
just too much.
In the heat or eat States, that is as much as 11 percent of all
beneficiaries. In one step, we imposed new administrative costs on
those States and make it harder to keep SNAP more responsive. Kids were
off school 2 days--2 days--this week because of the frigid, dangerous
cold. And throwing these families back to heat or eat is the wrong
thing to do.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), another one of my outstanding subcommittee
chairmen.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to first say thank
you to Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson. The Ag Committee has
some of the most conservative Members of the House and some of the most
liberal Members of the House, and I will tell you we have a lot of
different opinions about what could and what should be done, but we had
respectful discussion across the aisle and across the philosophical
debates.
I have said many times from this podium that the foundation of our
economy in this country is based on two things, one of them being
manufacturing and the other one based on agriculture.
This bill does the things it needs to do to ensure that foundation
for our agricultural producers to help with that part of the economy.
It also ensures that, as those farmers go forward and do the things
that they do in providing the food, the nutrition, and the fiber, not
only for America but for the rest of the world, that Americans--
[[Page H1492]]
Americans--when they go to the grocery store, will get more for their
dollar than any other country as they seek to feed their families.
We found agreement to clean up waste and abuse within many of the
systems, including the food stamp system. We have given more money to
food banks, which I think is extremely important in making sure that
the most needy of American citizens have a place to go and make sure
that they can get the nutrition that they need.
We have put some new policies in place, and I am confident that this
bill is a move in the right direction. Where we have got those areas
where we did not find the agreement, I am confident we will be able to
come back and work on those.
I am proud to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the chairman and the ranking
member for your incredible hard work. The folks of Oklahoma and
Minnesota should be proud of the representatives that they have sent
here.
I am proud of this piece of legislation. I stand in support of it. It
has been 2 years. I feel like we have been at it most of our lives. And
while I hear people pointing out problems, I am certainly there. If we
had each written this bill, it would look different. I hear people say
it is not perfect. We had a former colleague once who said, Of course
it is not perfect. If you want perfect, you will get that in Heaven.
And at times, this place is closer to Hell.
So this is a pretty good compromise that we have come up with. It
certainly does things, and I am proud to say it makes bold new
investments in clean and renewable, American-made energy. This is a
tough decision in a tough budgeting time; and of the commitment of this
committee to make that happen, I could not be prouder.
It also takes bold steps moving the country forward on conservation
measures. One piece in here, protecting our native prairies in the
Midwest, is fabulous. And I want to thank the gentlelady from South
Dakota (Ms. Noem) for her unwavering effort on this.
I would say this: we reject the false choice that you have to choose
between sportsmen's conservation and producing food on the land. You
can have all things. And as the folks over at Ducks Unlimited said,
this is one of the best pieces of conservation legislation in decades.
We come out and do that. So we have struck a balance here, producing
the food, feeding the world, clothing the world, and empowering the
world, and at the same time providing for the heritage of our sportsmen
and the pristine beauty of our country. So it can happen.
As a veteran, I am proud that we took a bold step in here trying to
figure ways to get returning veterans back on the land. The average age
of a farmer in this country is 57 years old. We need new folks on the
land, and that comes with high land prices and access to capital.
Mr. Peterson, Mr. Fortenberry, and I worked on some beginning farmer
and rancher legislation. Senator Klobuchar on the Senate side and the
chairman made sure it happened here. It is going to work. It provides
some of that access, and it keeps our family farms continuing on.
So there are things to point out that you are frustrated with. I
understand that. But there is a lot of good in this bill. It is a
compromise. We came together. We tried to find and strike those
balances. We continue to feed those folks who need the safety net, and
we continue to make sure that our producers have the certainty that
they need.
I have to tell you, all across this country this morning, producers
woke up and quietly went about their business feeding, fueling, and
powering America. We can say ``thank you'' by passing this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to my
colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, rather than producing a farm bill that
meets our traditional responsibilities as a Congress to support working
families and farmers, this bill will do great damage to the Nation's
most vulnerable citizens. This bill slashes $8.6 billion from food
stamps, our Nation's most important antihunger program--this is in
addition to the $11 billion already cut--while it goes out of its way
to reopen the loopholes that benefit millionaires and billionaires.
Interesting enough, this bill increases the deficit this year, and
the Congressional Budget Office has said that it doesn't save the $23
billion that it claims to save. This bill results in winners and
losers.
Winners--wealthy farmers and agribusinesses who will be able to
pocket crop insurance subsidies and other government handouts beyond
the already generous limits passed earlier by both the House and the
Senate. The Congressional Budget Office, again, says it
increases spending on crop insurance by $5.7 billion.
The Senate passed a bipartisan amendment to reduce the level of
Federal premium support for crop insurance participants who make over
$750,000, but the conference raised it to $900,000--winners.
Against the expressed wishes of both Houses, the bill's drafters
reopened a loophole which was closed in both the House and the Senate
bills which allows farming enterprises to overcollect on commodity
payments--winners.
But then who are the losers? And there are losers in the farm bill.
The losers are the 850,000 low-income households all over America, 1.7
million Americans who will lose 66 meals a month because of these cuts
to food stamps.
Who are we talking about? Children who will go hungry and spend all
the next day at school. They will go to bed hungry, spend the next day
at school unable to concentrate because they are thinking about food.
Veterans, roughly 900,000 of whom receive food stamps, and working
families who will face an empty fridge and a gnawing pain in their
stomach for weeks and weeks. Seniors have to choose between food or
warmth, whose health will deteriorate for want of sustenance.
These are our own people we are consigning to this fate, hardworking
people in our districts and in our communities. And if you vote for
this bill, you will have to look them in the eye and tell them to go
without food, that they have to endure hunger because we had to give
more handouts to millionaires and to billionaires.
That is what this farm bill is about. Make no mistake. It increases
hunger rather than decreases hunger in America. It picks winners and
losers rather than ensuring we are supporting those that grow and those
that consume the food we produce in this Nation of plenty.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. DeLAURO. It picks winners and losers rather than ensuring that we
are supporting those that grow and those that consume the food that we
produce in this Nation of plenty, which is what farm bills have been
about in the past.
I have negotiated nutrition titles in farm bills. This is a farm bill
that undermines the health and the well-being of the most vulnerable in
our society.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who has worked extremely diligently early
on on this bill and through the entire process.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, thank you to Chairman
Lucas for the leadership he has shown in getting this conference report
to the floor.
I rise in strong support of this conference committee report. It is a
commonsense piece of legislation that deals with things such as
overregulation. That is a silent job killer that this administration is
implementing through our agricultural industry. I am proud that many of
the provisions that I helped craft are in this final farm bill to
reduce that opportunity for this administration to continue to kill
jobs in this country.
We see some commonsense reforms to the SNAP program. Our goal should
be to get people off of SNAP and into jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill
is a lesson in fiscal responsibility. It is one of the single largest
cuts in mandatory spending that this Congress has done, which is
putting our country on a path to complete fiscal responsibility. These
[[Page H1493]]
are some of the decisions that we need to make. Most of those cuts are
in the agricultural side.
We need to understand that this is a commonsense piece of
legislation. It is going to continue to reduce our deficit in this
country, put us on a path to paying down our national debt, and putting
excellent long-term farm policy in place for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the committee.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we serve in an imperfect Congress, and we are
voting on an imperfect farm bill. In some cases, we spend far too much
needlessly and irresponsibly, and in some cases we spend far too little
unwisely and irresponsibly. But a 5-year farm bill is absolutely
crucial to America, and it is crucial to Vermont dairy farmers.
This bill takes three important steps for dairy farmers in Vermont
and throughout the country:
One, it creates a modern-day insurance program which protects farmers
against the wild swings in feed prices which are totally out of their
control;
Two, it protects taxpayers, as well as farmers, by limiting insurance
to a farmer's base production; and
Three, finally, it gives USDA the tools to intervene if dairy prices
drop dramatically.
Mr. Speaker, with its faults and imperfections, America does need a
new farm bill. Agriculture is changing all around us. Local food is a
growing sector in my State. The organic sector is booming, and people
are much more aware of their food and farms. This farm bill invests in
local foods, provides insurance to small farmers, and puts organic
farming on a strong footing for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the nutrition title in the
Conference Report for the 2014 Farm Bill. I served on the House
Agriculture Committee through the 112th Congress, when the Agriculture
Committee began its farm bill deliberations and wrote its first version
of the farm bill, including the nutrition title. I am very familiar
with the changes to the nutrition title in the final conference
agreement. This bill represents an imperfect but bi-partisan and bi-
cameral compromise. While I am disappointed that the Conferees were not
able to make new investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in
Vermont and around this country put food on the table, the bill makes
some modest improvements and has wisely rejected many of the cuts in
the House bill.
In fact, the nutrition title reflects the success SNAP has had
providing nutrition assistance during the historic rise in need as a
result of the Great Recession. Not only has the program been responsive
to need, but it's maintained historically low payment error and
trafficking rates. The farm bill makes some improvements to keep the
program operating efficiently and to remain the lifeline that it is for
so many of our neighbors. It also modestly invests in anti-fraud
efforts and promising employment and training programs.
I would like to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits in
the bill that affects households in Vermont. The farm bill cuts about
$90 a month to about 850,000 families nationwide by increasing the
level of federal energy assistance required to trigger higher benefits
among recipients. This provision changes the SNAP benefit calculation
for households receiving very small LIHEAP payments in Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program benefits. This cut will cause pain for the
households that will see their benefits reduced. Despite the change,
it's important for people who have heating or cooling expenses to
maintain the deduction they are eligible for. The conferees have
assured us that the provision will maintain the fundamental link
between traditional LIHEAP programs and SNAP.
For this change to be executed properly, it is essential that USDA
work closely with states to ensure that no SNAP household who also
participates in LIHEAP inadvertently lose benefits. Many of those that
currently receive the SUA due to a $1 LIHEAP benefit may still pay for
heating or cooling, and so they need a chance to show that they have
those expenses. The process to do so should be designed to minimize the
burden on these households.
More important is to ensure that households that do not receive
smaller LIHEAP benefits are not adversely affected by any aspect of
this provision's implementation. The Agriculture Committees debated
several approaches to resolving this issue, and savings were never
attributed to states that did not provide a smaller LIHEAP benefit.
USDA must ensure that this provision's impact is limited only to
household that receive a minor LIHEAP payment, such as $1. I do not
envision that states will need to make changes to their forms or
verification policies.
The farm bill also includes a number of improvements in the SNAP
operation and administration. Like with the SUA provision, it's clear
from these provisions that the conferees were committed to focusing on
changes that placed the burden on state agencies, not households
applying for or participating in the program. For example, there's a
requirement that states check state lottery and gaming records to make
sure no lottery winners who are ineligible, due to their winnings, stay
on the program. It's a reasonable policy, and the conferees wisely
require the state to rely on records to identify the rare instance
rather than ask demeaning questions of every SNAP applicant. There are
other examples--such as use of the national New Hire Database--where
the bill charges USDA and state agencies to use databases, technology
and back office functions to improve the program without burdening SNAP
applicants and participants. I do not expect states to have to add
questions to their applications seeking information on whether
applicants were ever convicted of a heinous crime in response to the
provision that reiterates current policy with respect to fleeing
felons. Asking low-income families and seniors in need whether they
have won the lottery or are a convicted murderer compromises the
programs' image and would denigrate people for needing its help.
There are also some promising changes to the program for the
retailers that participate. The farm bill authorizes pilot programs to
test the use of mobile technologies in SNAP--things like smart phone
apps that have become increasingly common in the larger retail world.
This may be especially important to farmers markets and vegetable
stands that are unable to install traditional EBT processing machines.
While expanding potential options for retailers is important, it is
critical to the long term success of the program that bad actors
looking to take advantage of new approaches are kept out of the
program. I urge USDA to set high retailer integrity standards and
carefully monitor the pilots to prevent fraud. There's a similar
provision that tests the feasibility of allowing the online purchase of
food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a growing food industry trend
towards online transactions with delivery. This can help make the
program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting to a
store, but rigorous anti-fraud standards must apply to any new way of
redeeming benefits, and it will require USDA to be actively engaged in
monitoring the pilot.
I would like to point out that these new mobile and online
technologies, common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo
identification or other biometric information to authorize payments and
maintain integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP
retail transaction should look like any other debit card transaction.
Thus, I urge USDA to stop allowing misguided efforts at the state level
to require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of
purchase. USDA must increase its scrutiny of such efforts to ensure
that all household members and authorized representatives can use
purchase food on behalf of the household. Technology has made these
conditions on the use of benefits obsolete in the retail environment,
and so they should be eliminated from the SNAP retail environment as
well.
I commend the work of the Agriculture Committee conferees to identify
areas of bipartisan agreement that improve without imposing undue
hardship on participating households. The Agriculture Committees have a
long standing history of working together to solve difficult complex
food and agriculture issues facing the nation. This farm bill is a
solid step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want my colleagues to understand why those of us who are opposing
this bill because of the SNAP cuts are so concerned.
On November 1, when the ARRA moneys ran out, all 47 million people
who are on SNAP received a cut. For the average family of three, that
was about a $37 reduction per month, which is a lot of money when you
are struggling to put food on the table, because, quite frankly, the
SNAP benefit in and of itself is not adequate. People end up going to
food banks anyway.
If this bill passes, for over 800,000 families, well over 1 million
people, for the average family of three, an additional $90 cut will go
into effect. That is $120. I don't know where they are going to make
that up. I don't know where they are going to go to get help. We can
say, yeah, let the States pick it up. Well, the States aren't rushing
to pick anything up. Well, let the charities pick it up. Read the
newspaper.
[[Page H1494]]
Last week, The New York Times said that all of our food banks are at
capacity. They can't do it.
So what is going to happen to these people? In the United States of
America, the richest country in the history of the world, we ought to
all pledge that nobody--and I mean nobody--ought to go hungry. That is
what this fight is about.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time the three of us
have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who understands the diversity of weather
and understands the challenges that producers have.
{time} 1000
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and for
his leadership on the farm bill, and also Ranking Member Peterson for
all of his hard work and diligence in finding some common ground on a
bill that has been under negotiation for far too long.
I am so happy to be standing here with all of our Members and our
colleagues from the farm bill conference committee, which I was honored
to be a part of, and also with everyone else who is going to support
this bill. It is extremely bipartisan.
It has taken a lot of hard work to get to this point. I am proud of
the fact that we have a product in front of us that is not only good
for producers, it is good for consumers. It secures our food supply
into the future, which is one of the safest in the world.
We make reforms. We save billions of tax dollars. It is accountable
to the taxpayer in this country. We conserve wildlife habitat. We
provide a viable safety net for those who grow our food and for those
who rely on food assistance as well.
While Congress was writing this bill, my home State go hit with
droughts and blizzards that cost us tens of thousands of livestock. The
livestock disaster programs that I authored are in this bill and will
provide much-needed relief to those who are struggling so hard during
this difficult time.
Our Black Hills National Forest is going to gain some regulatory
relief and additional tools to combat the pine beetle that is
destroying our Black Hills and our forests across this country.
The nine tribes in South Dakota are going to get a permanent Office
of Tribal Relations--a real victory for all of our tribes across this
country who really need to have better communication within USDA.
Thousands of hunters in South Dakota and across the country every
year are going to be glad to know that they have got a provision in
place that will help protect grasslands.
Whether you grow corn, wheat, soybeans, or cotton, producers are
going to have more choices, which really at the end of the day is going
to help them cover their risk that they take every year. I am proud of
the bill, I am proud of our work, and I urge our colleague to support
the bill.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this farm bill.
This is a strong, reform-minded bill with bipartisan support. It will
grow our economy, create jobs, provide certainty, reduce our deficit,
and save the American taxpayers $16 billion.
The bill reforms the farm safety net, strengthening crop insurance
and commodity programs. These risk management tools assure farmers that
help is there when they need it.
The bill also encourages conservation and develops export markets to
help our farmers sell their products worldwide. Rural communities
depend on the farm bill too. Through critical rural development
programs, small towns can build hospitals, schools, fire departments,
and police departments. This bill helps create jobs and economic
development.
Water and wastewater programs, the most basic of public services that
allow industries to come to rural areas, give access to healthy
drinking water, and sanitary sewers, are part of this as well.
This bill has important tools for new farmers, and I can tell you, as
one in the State of North Carolina, where one out of every five jobs
are dependent upon agriculture or agri-related business, this bill is
about jobs and our economy and ways that it helps States throughout
America.
There is still some work to do, like bringing Country of Origin
Labeling rules into compliance with WTO and reducing the GIPSA rules.
However, our farmers, their families, and small towns all across
America have waited too long for a new farm bill.
Our citizens in rural America are taxpayers just as much as those who
live in urban and suburban areas. They deserve the respect of this
Congress. They deserve a farm bill that works for our citizens who live
in rural areas. They deserve the passage of this bill.
We all as Americans enjoy our wonderful supply of food and fiber that
the good Lord has blessed us with and that our farmers work so hard to
supply. We ought to work with our farmers and with agriculture and have
a strong farm bill that our citizens in all of America deserve to have
passed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this
point.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), another one of our outstanding
subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
this farm bill, and also to thank Chairman Lucas and Congressman
Peterson for their leadership on agriculture.
As many of my House colleagues have already said this morning, this
legislation is long overdue. This bill is truly worthy of its name, the
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, because of the
historic reforms it legislates.
Overall, the bill repeals or consolidates about 100 programs. Along
with sequestration reductions, it cuts mandatory spending by nearly $23
billion.
In the conservation title alone, we reduced programs from 23 down to
13. This change alone saves $6 billion, and I believe does so without
undercutting the effectiveness of the needed programs.
We reform food stamps, and we do so through thoughtful, targeted
changes, ensuring that those who truly need the assistance will receive
it.
We finally get positive changes for our dairy farmers who work so
hard 7 days a week providing milk for this Nation.
With the 2008 farm bill expiring nearly a year and a half ago, I urge
my colleagues to vote for this legislation and finally give our farmers
and rural constituents the support and certainty they deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take
that much.
Overall, this farm bill also assures that all Americans have access
to affordable, high-quality, and safe food.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is bipartisan legislation
that is good for our farmers and families. It is an accomplishment that
will create jobs, help our farmers, and preserve access to healthy
food.
This bill includes unprecedented funding for specialty crops and
organic farms. It is no understatement to say that this is the best
farm bill yet for specialty crop farmers.
I am proud the farm bill includes $200 million to fund my proposal to
expand job training programs for SNAP recipients to find self-
sustaining jobs.
Make no mistake: no one got everything they wanted. I am disappointed
that nutrition assistance is reduced at a time when the need is high.
However, this bill will not eliminate SNAP eligibility for anyone still
in need. In addition, the removal of the dairy stabilization program is
disappointing. This reform would have helped farmers and
[[Page H1495]]
protected consumers. This bill is an improvement but falls short of
solving the entire problem.
Overall, this bill provides the certainty needed to grow our economy
and bolster America's agriculture industry. I strongly urge a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to reiterate one
thing. Some may view that I represent the State of Connecticut, the
Third Congressional District in Connecticut, and, in fact, what do we
know about farming? The fact is that we do. We have dairy farmers,
people with specialty crops, and included in my history in this great
body, I served as chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee on
Appropriations. I also served as the ranking member, and, as I
mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to be part of the conference
committee on the farm bill in 2008 and helped to negotiate the
nutrition title.
If I can make one or two more points. This farm bill says that it is
going to save $23 billion. They count savings from over a year ago.
They talk about $16.6 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says
that even as we cut that $8.6 billion from the food stamp program,
taking meals away from 1.7 million of the most vulnerable in our
society, we are increasing spending on crop insurance by $5.7 billion
in the farm bill.
In case folks do not know, the fact of the matter is that Americans
subsidize crop insurance. We pick up over 60 percent of the cost of the
premiums on crop insurance. We pay 100 percent of the administrative
costs in terms of crop insurance. We have 26 individuals who get at
least $1 million in a crop insurance subsidy, and we can't find out who
they are.
While the cuts in food stamp benefits are going to be felt
immediately across those 850,000 households, primarily made up of
children, the elderly, disabled, and veterans, few if any of the
Congressional Budget Office projected commodity programs savings may
ever be realized if crop prices continue to fall. This is reflected in
that CBO score that the deficit would be increased this year with this
bill. Only food stamps would be cut this year. We should vote against
this bill.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) who
is so focused on these issues.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member, who had to do a lot of work on this bill over the years, and I
rise today in support of the Agriculture Act of 2014. This measure is
important for farms and hardworking families in northern Michigan.
Northern Michigan is home to a number of centennial family farms,
meaning they have been in the family for over 100 years--farms like the
Bardenhagen's in Suttons Bay, where they grow asparagus, apples,
cherries, and potatoes. Take a short drive down the road, and you will
find another centennial family farm at the Wagner's in Grawn. They grow
corn, wheat, soybeans, and raise beef cattle for their neighbors. These
family-owned operations are a vital and growing part of northern
Michigan's economy, and it has been an honor to get to know them.
These growers work hard to produce quality products--like tart
cherries, apples, and asparagus--that feed northern Michigan and
families around the world.
This bill represents the hard work and input of stakeholders from
northern Michigan and across the country. While not perfect, it
reflects the needs of our rural agricultural economy that is vital to
Michigan's First Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to
support passage of this bill.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
Agriculture, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart and soul of our
Nation. It provides the food we eat. It provides the clothes we wear.
It provides the material to build our homes and our shelters. No
committee is as engaged in the entire nooks and crannies of the fabric
of this Nation as the Agriculture Committee. This farm bill is a
product of what makes America great. What makes America great is our
democratic Republic, the anchor of which is compromise.
I want to commend Mr. Peterson, our ranking member, for his job; Mr.
Lucas, the chair of our committee, for his job. It has been 5 years we
have been on this. I particularly want to thank Mr. Peterson. It was a
pleasure working with Mr. Peterson on an issue very dear to him, which
is dairy, as we worked out the fabric of that. I commend the leadership
on our committee.
However, there is yet work to be done. The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) was right. Mr. McGovern was right. Ladies and
gentlemen of this committee and this House and in this Nation, we have
got a serious problem with hunger in this country, and it is not going
away until we realize the gravity of it. Our veterans, our seniors, the
most vulnerable--we must address this issue.
My position on this bill is that I will vote for it. We have worked
on it. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not. Are we a perfect Nation?
No, we are not. But we are constantly striving, striving for that, and
we will get closer to this perfect position as we bring all Americans
involved and let no American go hungry in this country. I urge everyone
to please vote for the bill.
{time} 1015
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
This legislation is commonly referred to as the ``farm bill,'' but it
is also a ``food bill.'' On that note, it falls short.
To be clear, this is miles ahead of where we started with what I
consider a truly heartless Republican proposal, and I know that our
conferees worked hard to make improvements to this bill. In particular,
I want to thank Collin Peterson and the Members of the Democratic side
of the aisle who are dedicated to work to improve this bill.
But it still leaves too many families behind. The SNAP cut in this
bill may seem small on paper, but it is not to the families that it
will affect. It is not to the food banks that are already stretched
well beyond their means.
In New York City, 280,000 households are expected to see their
benefits drop under this bill. Those are benefits that don't go
anywhere near far enough to begin with.
We see every day in New York City how deep the need for food
assistance is. Our food banks and community hunger organizations are
doing everything they can to provide food to hungry families. They are
joined by citizen heroes like Jorge Munoz, who I was honored to host
last night as my guest to the State of the Union.
Jorge has been called ``an angel in Queens'' for his work in feeding
the hungry. He saw a need on the streets of Queens and he jumped in to
fill it, serving home-cooked meals out of his truck to what started as
a small group of homeless and unemployed New Yorkers. As word grew of
his generosity, so did the crowds eager just for something to get
through that night.
Since 2004, Jorge has served over 225,000 meals on the streets of
Queens, New York. He and I know there are more people out there who are
hungry, who are cold, and who are in need of every bit of assistance
that they get.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. We should be doing more, not less. What is really
troubling is that I know there are some on the other side of the aisle
who think this doesn't cut food assistance enough. Imagine that--there
is $8 billion--$8 billion worth of cuts in this bill, and still that is
far less than they wanted to cut.
The fact that in some ways this bill can be considered a compromise
option just shows how unreasonable the cuts proposed by the other side
were. What have we come to when we argue about how much of a cut to
hungry children and families is reasonable?
Yes, this bill is not as bad as it could be, but it is not as good as
it should be. That is why I will be voting ``no'' against this bill
today.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who has some of the
[[Page H1496]]
most productive agricultural land and some of the most amazing farmers
and ranchers.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great personal privilege and pleasure for me to
come down here on behalf of 14,000 farmers and ranchers in my district
and 75,000 farmers and ranchers in the State of Oklahoma, and goodness
knows how many tens of thousands of people beyond that in various
phases of agriculture and ag industry, and thank my good friend,
Chairman Lucas, for what he has accomplished.
I think it is easy to be the critic; but I think all of us on this
House floor know how long and how arduous this struggle has been to
bring all the competing interests together, to bring both sides of the
aisle together, to bring both Chambers together, and to bring the
administration together in support of this legislation.
It is easy to see why you would support it if you actually step back
and take a look at what it does. First, it does save $23 billion.
Frankly, those cuts largely don't come out of the safety net programs,
where actually there is simply relatively modest, but important
reforms. They actually come out of the production end of this business.
Changes need to be made there, but we ought to recognize those are
tough changes in and of themselves.
Second, it preserves the capability of this country to continue to
produce more food and fiber than anybody else in the world--not just
for our people, but for all over the world--and to deliver that at a
cheaper price than anybody else in the world. It is worth reflecting
that Americans pay a lower percentage of their income for food than any
other country in the world. Guess what? With the additional income,
they are able to do other things, invest in other things, and go on.
Finally, I am particularly pleased that the safety net has been
preserved and that important programs are in place. We ought to
recognize that wouldn't have been possible without my friend Chairman
Lucas, all he has done to bring us together and how hard he has worked.
This bill, frankly, deserves the support of every Democrat and every
Republican on this floor. I urge my colleagues to be supportive when
the time to vote comes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I believe I
have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time, unless we
are ready to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be
recognized first to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if there are no
other speakers, but my understanding is that Mr. Peterson may have one
other speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, we had one Member that wanted to speak,
and we are trying to ascertain his whereabouts at this point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let me give an update on the times
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Minnesota has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members want to get out of
here and get on planes and so forth, so after Mr. McGovern closes, I
will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, let me say that I am grateful to Chairman Lucas and
Ranking Member Peterson. I appreciate their hard work. I appreciate
their dedication on these issues. It is a privilege to be on the
Agriculture Committee, and I am proud to serve with them, as with the
other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.
Unfortunately, I cannot support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by speaking to my fellow
Democrats.
Last night, we sat in this Chamber and we listened to the President
give his State of the Union address. When he talked about raising the
minimum wage, we all stood up and cheered. When he talked about the
need to address income inequality, we all applauded. But cheers and
applause aren't enough.
I ask my colleagues to think back, to remember listening to their
parents or their grandparents talk about how Franklin Roosevelt always
stood up for the little guy. Remember those pictures of Bobby Kennedy
touring through Appalachia and touching the cheeks of hungry children.
That is why we became Democrats in the first place. Those are the
people that got us into politics. Those are our people.
Don't throw that away just to be able to say you voted for a farm
bill. Don't turn your backs on our heritage and on our history by
giving bipartisan cover to what I believe is a flawed bill.
We don't have to do this. The price of admission to pass a farm bill
should not be more cuts to SNAP. Make no mistake about it, my friends
on the Republican side are not through when it comes to SNAP. They are
going to come back after this program again and again and again.
We need to push back. We need to say enough.
Some have rationalized these cuts; some have tried to explain them
away as being nothing but closing a loophole. They are wrong. People
are going to be hurt. People all over this country--1.7 million
people--are going to be impacted by this. There should be nobody in
this country--the richest country in the history of the world--who
should ever go hungry. That should be a nonpartisan issue.
But to my fellow Democrats, in particular, this is an issue that we
have championed time and time again over the many years of the
existence of this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. Vote
your conscience.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well.
I want to again thank the chairman and all of the Members on both
sides of the aisle for their work and hanging in there for all these
months and years to get to this point, and congratulate the chairman on
what I expect to be a successful outcome in a little bit of time here.
With that, I would ask everybody to support this conference report,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would also like to join my colleague in adding to the
Congressional Record a list of the majority staff members.
I must say in all fairness, while there was cooperation among the
members of the committee itself, the cooperation among House and Senate
Members was exemplary.
I would also note the work of our staff, those good men and women, R
and D, House and Senate, over the course of these years cannot be
underestimated or underappreciated. The hours, the spirit of comity,
the focus on accomplishing things, trying to do good policy, it just
cannot be overstated how important all those good folks have been.
With that, Mr. Speaker, let me simply close by saying this: no one
cares more about agricultural policy, farmers and ranchers, consumers
and everyone in the process that takes it from the seed to the plate or
the bowl than I do. But I think in good faith I can say my colleague
Mr. Peterson cares just as much as I do. The members of our committee
care just as much as we do.
This bill, done in what I would like to define as regular order
through the committee process and the floor and the conference, may not
have exactly everything my friends on the right would want or my
friends on the left would want, but it represents making the process
work, achieving consensus, putting into place policies that are better
than what were there before to drive this effort forward.
I know that we sincerely disagree on many things, and I know some of
my friends don't sometimes act like they care about what happens out on
the farm or the ranch. I know that is not the case. They do care.
But I would simply say this: no matter how much money we spend on
supplemental programs to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to
eat--and
[[Page H1497]]
that is important--never forget if there is not a product on the shelf,
if there is not meat in the case, if there are not vegetables or fruit
available, it doesn't matter how much you subsidize. The food has to be
there.
That is why I have said all along a farm bill still has to have farm
in it. This Agriculture Act of 2014 lives up to that. It makes a
commitment to our fellow citizens who are in tough times, but it will
also ensure the food will be there.
Don't take us down the path that many other countries have gone
through in the last century of people lined up at empty shelves, people
hoarding particular ag products because it is available that day
because they will trade it the next day when something might be
available.
Let's continue to do this miracle called American agriculture. Oh, by
the way, depending on how you define ``miracle'' in the environment we
have worked together in, this farm bill might not be quite defined by
most people as a miracle, but it is amazingly close.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass the conference report, let's complete our
responsibilities, let's show the rest of this place how it is supposed
to be done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
House Committee on Agriculture Staff List
Majority Staff: Brent Blevins, Caleb Crosswhite, Mike
Dunlap, Bart Fischer, Jason Goggins, John Goldberg, Tamara
Hinton, John Konya, Kevin Kramp, Brandon Lipps, Alan Mackey,
Brian Martin-Haynes, Josh Mathis, Josh Maxwell, Merrick
Munday, Danita Murray, Mary Nowak, Riley Pagett, Matt
Schertz, Nicole Scott, Debbie Smith, Skylar Sowder, Patricia
Straughn, Pelham Straughn, Pete Thomson, Margaret Wetherald.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Agricultural
Act of 2014.
I want to congratulate all the conferees on getting to this point.
Even though the bill is not perfect, it is needed.
I am confident that this legislation will serve Nebraska farmers
well.
My main concern with the bill was making meaningful reforms to SNAP
so that it serves those who really need it without the rampant waste,
fraud, and abuse that currently plagues the system.
I am pleased that the conferees included the establishment of a 10-
state pilot program to empower states to engage able-bodied adults in
mandatory work programs.
This is a commonsense reform and it's my hope my home state of
Nebraska choses to participate in this pilot.
This farm bill is a step in the right direction.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the work of the
Agriculture Committee and especially Chairman Lucas, to bring this very
long farm bill negotiation to a conclusion. Agriculture and all of its
supporting industries desperately need a five-year farm bill and the
stability it brings.
I am profoundly disappointed, however, that the bill does not take
the opportunity to resolve some very important issues affecting
livestock. The Country of Origin Labeling rule proposed by the
Administration is unworkable and puts our livestock industry at a
significant disadvantage. It will invite punitive trade sanctions. That
requirement should have been repealed, and I will continue to work to
repeal it.
Similarly, Congress has regularly prevented the implementation of the
controversial provisions of the GIPSA marketing rule through the
appropriation process. I assume we will continue to do so, but it would
have been better to remove that threat permanently.
There was also an opportunity missed to resolve the issue related to
horse processing, and so the needless suffering of old and unwanted
horses will continue, as will the effects on the value of horses across
the country.
At the same time, the biggest issue facing agriculture in my district
and throughout most of Texas has been the drought. I appreciate the
permanent livestock disaster program in this bill, which will be very
welcomed by livestock producers of all sizes throughout our region of
the country.
I believe that the reforms made to commodity programs are needed and
will strengthen the political viability of those programs into the
future. Having additional risk management tools available to producers
who are increasingly competing in a global market should be quite
helpful.
Finally, I would strongly prefer to make greater reforms in food
stamps and other nutrition programs, such as were contained in the
House passed version, but given the realities of the political
situation in Washington, I believe that the savings in this bill are a
step, at least, in the right direction.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have
joined the majority of Democrats and Republicans who unilaterally alike
passed a bill that will fund our Nation's most important anti-hunger
program which touches nearly 1 out of 7 Americans by a vote of 251-166.
The bill now heads to the President's desk who has indicated he will
sign it into law in a matter of days.
In these tough budgetary times, we should not signal to our
constituents that helping those most in need is no longer a priority. I
am pleased that the bipartisan, bicameral five-year farm bill contains
major reforms including eliminating the direct payment program,
streamlining and consolidating numerous programs to improve their
effectiveness and reduce duplication, and cutting down on program
misuse. Additionally, this bill excludes the drastic $40 billion cut in
the House-passed version of the farm bill, but makes progress in
addressing hunger and poverty by investing new resources in other
nutrition programs.
The bill also renews critical investments in important programs for
beginning farmers, local food systems, organic agriculture, and healthy
food access, and also adds conservation requirements to the receipt of
crop insurance premium subsidies. The final bill also rejected
proposals to eliminate market and contract protections for livestock
and poultry farmers.
Congress first enacted the farm bill in response to the Great
Depression in order to foster growth in our Nation's economy and to
protect those who were most in need. Today, we are still recovering
from what some economists call, ``the Great Recession.'' We find
ourselves at a crossroads where we must decide how to manage our fiscal
priorities while still protecting those who were hardest hit by the
recent recession. President Eisenhower once said, ``Every gun that is
made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the
final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who
are cold and are not clothed.''
This bill is far from a perfect one. However, given a lengthy two-
and-a-half-year process and the importance of renewing funding for the
most innovative programs for the future of agriculture and nutrition, I
supported this carefully negotiated package in an effort to do more
good than harm. I have received letters from numerous groups including
several of the largest general farm organizations in the country which
have voiced support for this bill. I am pleased this bill maintains the
long-standing bipartisan fashion in which urban and rural members unite
to support this package.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas
and Ranking Member Peterson for their work on this issue.
Although I have deep concerns about this bill, I understand that in
divided government, no party will get everything it wants.
That said, this bill lays the foundation for a fundamental reform of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP--namely, it will
allow states to require work in exchange for benefits. Before the 1996
welfare-reform bill, several states experimented with work
requirements, and the evidence gathered from those experiments led to
the most expansive reform of the welfare state ever.
This bill also partially closes a loophole in the SNAP program known
as ``heat and eat''--a reform included in previous House Budgets.
Finally, this bill eliminates Direct Payments, excludes supply-
management provisions in the dairy program, and reduces the deficit by
$16.6 billion over the next ten years. This bill would save more money
than doing nothing.
I wish this bill included more reforms to our agricultural programs.
It did not include crop-insurance reforms supported by both the House
and the Senate. We should have a safety net for our farmers. We should
help the little guy--the family farm that's in need. We shouldn't
bankroll the big guys. So we should tighten the eligibility standards
for crop subsidies. I'm disappointed we didn't use this opportunity to
make fundamental changes to business as usual.
But on the whole, I think this bill will do some good. It will save
more money than if we did nothing. It will provide some much-needed
certainty to family farmers. It is an improvement over the status quo,
and so I support it.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yes'' on
rollcall 31 on the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2642, ``The Farm
Bill.''
This conference report has made great improvements in reducing the
draconian cuts to the SNAP program proposed in the House passed version
of the Farm bill. While I appreciate the reduction in cuts, we should
do more to help those most in need. The Conference report also
eliminates the King Amendment, which would have destroyed critical
state safety and labeling laws. The bipartisan bill includes strong
conservation provisions that will help protect our nation's soil, water
and wildlife resources. Most notably, the bill makes federal crop
insurance subsidies contingent on basic soil and wetland conservation
practices. While not perfect, this conference report is a
[[Page H1498]]
fair compromise that will hopefully lay the groundwork for finding
additional common ground in the future.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, the 2014 farm bill is an important example
of how Congress can produce meaningful bipartisan compromise. Overall,
this Farm Bill represents years of hard work from a bipartisan
coalition of lawmakers, farmers and stakeholders from across the
country to put together a bill that is good for our farmers and
families. It's a major accomplishment that will create jobs, help our
farmers and preserves Americans access to quality, healthy food.
As in all compromises, no one got everything they wanted. I'm
disappointed that the bill includes reforms that will reduce nutrition
assistance funding at a time when hunger and poverty remain too high in
our country. However, unlike the original House Republican proposal,
which was a $40 billion cut and would have removed nearly 4 million
people from SNAP, the compromise agreed to today will not eliminate
SNAP eligibility for anyone still in need. This outcome will garner
bipartisan support not just because of what it excluded but also for
the important reforms and program improvements that it includes. I
would like to discuss the SNAP provisions in the nutrition title in
greater depth to ensure my colleagues have a richer understanding of
the outcome of the Conference Committee agreement and what it will mean
for the program and its participants.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP here in
Washington, DC and as Basic Food in Washington State, is the backbone
of our federal nutrition assistance safety net. The program has more
than proven itself during the economic down-turn of the last several
years. With its help, millions of struggling families and seniors are
able to put food on the table each day. The program efficiently and
accurately delivers benefits that have a significant impact on low-
income Americans. Nevertheless, I saw it as my role as a member of the
Agriculture Committee and as a conferee to search for ways in which the
program could continue to improve. This farm bill represents the
conferees' shared vision for ways to improve several aspects of SNAP's
basic operations.
One of the changes that we are making, of which I am most proud, is
the plan to test promising strategies to connect more SNAP participants
to employment. This legislation includes pilot programs to test
innovative means of supporting SNAP recipients' efforts to improve
their lives. This was an aspect of the original House bill that I
worked on with Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson.
Unfortunately, the House passed nutrition title also included work
pilot provisions that had elements that were of serious concern to me.
As a result, I did not support that bill's final package. As conferees,
however, we worked to overcome those differences. Many of us worked
long hours to help craft these pilots, and I think the final provision
shows the impact of those efforts.
The farm bill provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative
and promising state employment and training programs. States can test
activities that are currently allowed under SNAP's employment and
training program, activities that are allowed under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and supportive
services that SNAP offers to enrollees in SNAP employment and training
programs such as child care and help with transportation costs. We
wanted to be sure that states were able to create innovative programs
for volunteers such as the Job Training Initiative in Seattle which
focused on skills building or education programs that might improve an
individual's employability. Moreover, it was very important to us to
ensure that states could try interventions that have not been permitted
in SNAP in the past--such as offering child care assistance to an
underemployed or unemployed parent whose primary barrier to work may
simply be safe affordable child care. The same approach could be taken
with transitional housing or other innovative strategies to support
individuals' ability to increase their earnings. By including TANF
activities, we were able to ensure that states could test strategies
around subsidized and unsubsidized employment. We were inspired by the
effective subsidized employment programs states ran through the TANF
program during the economic downturn with federal funds made available
through the Recovery Act. States like Florida and Mississippi were
major champions of these efforts and we wanted to be sure the pilots
would support further efforts.
One of the changes that is potentially most important is the
inclusion of unsubsidized employment, including private-sector
employment, as a component to which states could assign individuals.
Obviously, unsubsidized employment is the goal to which almost all
workers aspire. On the other hand, because state agencies will not have
full control over, or even full information about, how these workplaces
operate, we felt the need to include significant safeguards.
Longstanding protections against the displacement of other workers
remain, as do workplace protection laws such as those for health and
safety, wage and hour standards, family leave, workers' compensation,
and the like. We expect the Department will promulgate extensive
standards in this regard and will supplement those standards as
experience shows necessary. In addition, the agreement ensures that
individuals who participate in employment activities in the work pilots
should not be subject to sanctions unless clear evidence shows that
that the individual wilfully refused to take actions that she or he
could safely and properly take. If the employer does not give the
individual as many hours as expected, or if the employer finds the
individual's skills lacking, or if the employer asks the individual to
work at a time when the individual lacks child care or transportation,
no sanction should apply. Where the state is uncertain what happened or
has no clear evidence of wilful refusal to comply, no sanction is
appropriate. Often, states just will not be entirely sure what happened
because they do not have the oversight over private employers in the
way that the usually do over work programs the states themselves
operate.
The inclusion of private-sector employment as a component to which
workers could be assigned does not in any way disparage states'
existing authority to treat jobs that SNAP applicants and recipients
have found for themselves as allowable work activities, obviating the
need for other placements and allowing the state to provide supportive
services the way it would to applicants and recipients in activities to
which the state had assigned them. We have no reason to value, or
support, a job that an enterprising recipient has found for her or
himself any less than we do a work assignment or training program to
which the state has assigned her or him. In each case, SNAP E&T's
single-minded goal should be for the applicant or recipient to succeed.
While the pilot projects are the work-related aspects of the title
that have gotten the most attention, the conferees included other
important reforms to SNAP employment and training. Consistent with the
original House bill, we felt it is very important for states and USDA
to do a better job of tracking outcomes for the services that they
offer SNAP participants. For their part, USDA must use this information
to assess whether SNAP employment and training can do better and
achieve more lasting long-term outcomes. That information will be
crucial to us when we reauthorize the program in another five years. Of
course, we understand that SNAP participants are often poor and low
skilled. We were very clear that expectations and outcomes for these
services need to be appropriate. Not everyone will find employment
immediately, especially in this economy. We expect that these measures
will consider that some employment and training services--such as
career and technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains
over the long haul but participants would not immediately find those
jobs because they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To
that end, USDA's study needs to recognize that getting better jobs may
require getting skills first, so delayed but enduring improvements are
important to monitor. We also believe, informed by the great work of
the Basic Food Employment and Training Program in my home state of
Washington, that connecting individuals to the right activity to help
them move forward is half the battle. We have called for USDA to
increase their monitoring of states' employment and training programs
and we expect them to make individual assessment of SNAP work
registrants, which is already a requirement, a key feature of their
state reviews.
Another key provision of the package is the effort to address the
relationship between SNAP and the Low-Income Heating and Energy
Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Of course, I am disappointed that the
final legislation includes any benefit reductions at all. Washington is
one of the states that had been using this option to leverage
additional benefits to our low-income households. I am satisfied that
the conferees did the best they could in narrowly targeting those
reductions to impact only those households who are claiming a standard
utility allowance by virtue of their receipt of a very small LIHEAP
benefit and, as a result, receiving a larger SNAP benefit. I wanted to
be sure that we would not impact households who receive more
traditional LIHEAP benefits. USDA assured us that individuals who
currently claim the SUA as a result of their participation in or
expected participation in LIHEAP will continue to be able to do so.
This change is meant to have its desired effect by states dropping
their nominal LIHEAP programs and informing USDA that they no longer
provide token payments. In that way, no one in the 34 states that have
not adopted this practice will see additional verification requirements
or barriers to claiming the SUA. At the same time, in my own state,
households that participate in our regular LIHEAP program should not
experience
[[Page H1499]]
any change in their certification process as a result of this change.
Moreover, nothing in this legislation will have any negative effect
on those households that have energy costs. We understand that, across
the country, a wide range of billing arrangements exist between
landlords and tenants. Even if a tenant does not pay utility bills
directly, if the landlord imposes a surcharge for utilities, the tenant
should be entitled to the standard utility allowance. States have the
capacity to look into and understand the various arrangements that
exist, and we should honor their determinations. A token one dollar
LIHEAP payment will not trigger eligibility for the SUA, but if the
state commits real money to energy assistance for a household because
it believes that household is vulnerable to utility costs, we should
continue to honor that judgment. The final legislation appropriately
honors that principle, unlike some earlier drafts.
Although on a much smaller scale, the bill includes several other
provisions where our intent was to tighten up or to clarify program
rules in a way that addresses concerns, but that does not increase
application burdens on the millions of law abiding low income
individuals who participate in this program. Our goal wherever
possible, was for state SNAP agencies to bear the burden of
implementing these changes so that we would maintain the same level of
access for SNAP households. Take for example the provision to require
that all states verify immigrant eligibility through the Citizenship
and Immigration Service. That requirement ensures that all states are
taking advantage of this high quality third party information to verify
immigration status. Nothing about this change, however, will change the
way that immigrants provide information about their immigration status.
The same is true of the prohibition on households with individuals who
win significant lottery or gambling winnings from participating in the
program. The conferees agreed that this prohibition should not be
implemented by requiring all 47 million individuals on SNAP to report
whether they had or had not recently won the lottery. To ask extremely
poor individuals that question would border on offensive. Instead,
states will have to work with their state level lotteries to obtain a
list of lottery winners against which they can match to the SNAP
caseload. We also took the same approach on the reiteration of the
current law restriction on fleeing felons. Some of the conferees felt
strongly that we reiterate that individuals convicted of particularly
heinous crimes who fall out of line with the terms of their parole are
not eligible for SNAP. As that is the current policy, there is no need
to make changes to states' application or verification systems to
implement this provision. We also included several provisions that are
consistent with current USDA rules and guidance governing SNAP. Our
goal was to codify these rules into federal law. As such, we banned
household expenditures on medical marijuana as an allowable expense
under the medical expense deduction. We codified the rules regarding
students participate in employment and training. Similarly, our efforts
to clarify that SNAP outreach workers may not earn a bounty for each
application they help an individual complete or may not pressure
someone who doesn't wish to apply to do so are consistent with current
USDA guidelines and rules governing outreach. None of these provisions
should have any impact on current clients our state outreach programs.
Finally, we included several provisions that will help to improve
access to healthy food options by requiring stores to stock more
perishable foods, allowing community supported agriculture programs to
participate as authorized SNAP retailers, and testing new ways for
clients to make purchases with their SNAP benefit card (for example, by
swiping SNAP cards on mobile devices at farmers' markets) that could
open up the program to more retailers with healthy options. In testing
these new technologies, we have urged USDA to take every precaution to
ensure that these advances do not compromise program integrity. We
anticipate they can overcome any challenges on this front and
successfully implement these options. The bill includes many other
provisions that affect other nutrition programs. I am very pleased that
we are increasing funding for food banks and emergency food providers.
These organizations are on the front lines of hunger and merit all the
support we can provide. We've also included support for community food
program grants and created a new national healthy food incentive
program modeled after private and foundation efforts to incentivize
health food purchases for SNAP participants by providing participants
with vouchers to purchase foods at local farmers markets. These efforts
will complement our efforts to address hunger through the major federal
nutrition programs.
As I said before, this bill is not perfect. However, the farm bill
conference report successfully addresses the most important food and
agricultural issues facing our country today while contributing to
deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Chairman Lucas
and his determination to get the Farm Bill across the finish line. The
Chairman and his staff have put tremendous work into this bipartisan,
bicameral bill.
This bill is not perfect. There are several areas we could have done
more on. I wish we could have implemented more reforms in the food
stamp program.
I am also very disappointed that this farm bill does not address
important issues for livestock and poultry producers--my constituents
back in North Carolina. As you know, the House-passed Farm Bill did
include language on the Country of Origin Labeling law and on USDA's
ability to write regulations related to the buying and selling of
livestock and poultry.
Yet, neither is included in this conference report.
More importantly, as my constituents have pointed out they now face
retaliation from our trading partners. Also, USDA's livestock
regulations now threaten to dictate the terms of their private
contracts.
Both can cause severe economic harm to North Carolina's farmers and
ranchers and to the U.S. economy and both must be addressed. I look
forward to continuing our work on these important issues and getting a
resolution quickly.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my reluctant support to
the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and
Risk Management Act, also known as the Farm Bill. This conference
report presents us with a difficult choice. On the one hand, it
contains numerous provisions that benefit our agriculture communities
and it represents another bipartisan accomplishment from both chambers.
On the other hand, it makes ill-advised changes in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that, had they been presented in a
separate bill, I would have strongly opposed.
The agricultural policy contained in this conference report is a
positive step forward for our nation's farmers and rural communities,
including those I represent in Northwest Oregon. Strong funding
authorizations for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program will help a wide variety of food producers in
my district, from blueberry and hazelnut farms to vineyards in the
world-renowned Willamette Valley wine region. The commitment to pest
and disease research in the bill is key to a healthy nursery industry
in Oregon, and the conference report includes language that will allow
organic producers and Christmas tree farmers to establish check off
programs that are critical to their long-term success.
For Oregon's struggling counties, this bill includes an essential
extension of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. PILT helps
the budgets of counties with large expanses of un-taxable federal land,
and its reauthorization in this bill is welcome news to the cash-
strapped rural areas of Oregon. For the environmental community, the
conference report represents an important commitment to responsible
farming practices, with crop insurance premium assistance tied to
conservation compliance measures that will help protect soil quality
and fragile wetlands.
Unfortunately this bill comes up short in one vital area: nutrition
policy. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a pillar of
this nation's social safety net, providing food assistance to those in
need, including many seniors and children. I do not support the changes
to SNAP in this conference report, but they are preferable to the
previous Farm Bill proposal considered by this chamber, which I voted
against. Although I am pleased that the bill provides additional funds
for food banks under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), I
am troubled by the impact that the SNAP cuts will have on Oregon
families.
I will reluctantly support this conference report because the
investments in our rural communities included in this bill will help
many of our constituents continue the long climb back from the
lingering effects of the economic down-turn. We must invest in these
communities to ensure that still more of our constituents don't come to
rely on federal assistance programs like SNAP. And despite unfortunate
cuts to the SNAP program, this bill is a vast improvement on the
devastating SNAP cuts that the House bill originally contained.
Congress must now commit to assisting those individuals who rely on
federal nutrition programs in other ways, and I will continue to work
with my colleagues on this issue.
The Farm Bill conference report is far from perfect, but it contains
several provisions that will benefit Oregonians. I urge its adoption.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the House on the
passage of a new farm bill. I know that the Chairman, the Ranking
Member and many other members of this body have worked diligently for a
very long period of time to reach this point. I am glad that this body
has finally passed legislation
[[Page H1500]]
that can bring some certainty to Iowa producers and allow them to plan
for their economic futures. While I know that we would all agree that
this process has taken far too long, I appreciate the endless hours of
work to bring us to this significant accomplishment. I trust the
legislation will soon make it to the President's desk.
However, no farm bill is perfect and I would be remiss if I did not
point out that this bill does not address all of the serious issues of
concern to the agricultural community. Congress must address the
serious issues related to Country of Origin Labeling in the meat
industry. Our livestock producers are quite appropriately concerned
that they may face trade retaliation from some of our closest trading
partners if these issues are not properly addressed. There are also
legitimate concerns regarding USDA's ability to write regulations
related to the buying and selling of livestock, which are not addressed
in this farm bill. While I am very pleased with what has been
accomplished here today, I urge my colleagues to join me in making sure
that we complete the work on those issues which were not included in
today's legislation.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, today is a monumental day for our nation's
agriculture policy. After three years of hard work, today the House of
Representatives finally approved a final Farm Bill that provides
certainty for our nation's farmers and institutes money-saving reforms
to agriculture and nutrition policy that we've needed for some time.
Agriculture is our top industry in Alabama, employing more 580,000
Alabamians. Agriculture alone is worth around $70 billion to our
state's economy. That is why this bill has been one of my top
priorities since being elected to Congress in 2010.
This bill is a win for Alabama farmers and foresters. It is also a
win for taxpayers. The Farm Bill replaces outdated policies left over
from the Pelosi-led Congress and represents a positive step toward
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of my Agriculture Advisory
Panel who have proved so beneficial to my staff and I throughout this
process. This group includes a representative from each county in
Alabama's Second Congressional District and representatives from a wide
variety of commodities and industries. We have held numerous meetings
in the District to share ideas, listen to concerns, and discuss a way
forward on agriculture policy. I cannot say enough about how much I
appreciate these individuals for sharing their time, knowledge, and
ideas.
One of the provisions included in this Farm Bill is a direct result
of a brainstorming session of our Agriculture Advisory Panel. The Farm
Bill includes a provision to reduce the amount of land allowed into the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), restricting the increasingly-
frequent practice of paying landowners to let fertile cropland go
unplanted for years.
Members of my Agriculture Advisory Panel are: Andy Wendland, Walt
Corcoran, Kenny Childree, Tom Duncan, Carl Sanders, Andy Sumblin, Josh
Carnley, Salem Saloom, Ricky Wiggins, Rhett Johnson, Tony Beck, Monica
Carroll, Albert Curry, Andy Bell, Neil Outlaw, Cindi Fain, Ed White,
Gary Mattox, Dale Armstrong, George Jeffcoat, Richard Holladay, Hassey
Brooks, Edwin Marty, John Dorrill, and Ed Berry.
I also want to mention the hard work of Mike Albares on my personal
staff who put in countless hours of work to help me through this
process. Mike, a native of Dothan, is well aware of the importance of
agriculture to South Alabama, and I appreciate his dedication to our
local farmers.
I want to thank Chairman Frank Lucas and his staff for their
diligent work throughout what has, at times, been a challenging
process. I want to recognize Ranking Member Peterson and his team for
all that they have done to work across the aisle to get this bill
finished. Agriculture policy has almost always been a bi-partisan
issue, and this final product is no different.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this bill isn't perfect. I would have
liked to have seen more reforms to nutrition programs, but we will
continue to work toward that goal. Undoubtedly, the reforms contained
in this Farm Bill are a major step in the right direction.
Thank you again to the countless individuals who helped make this
Farm Bill happen. I look forward to continuing to be a strong advocate
on behalf of Alabama's farmers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by a
5-minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251,
nays 166, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 31]
YEAS--251
Aderholt
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Poe (TX)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--166
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Capuano
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Harris
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Holding
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Jordan
Keating
Kennedy
Kind
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perry
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
[[Page H1501]]
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOT VOTING--14
Amodei
Campbell
Clay
Doyle
Edwards
Jones
Lynch
McCarthy (NY)
Miller (FL)
Moran
Ruppersberger
Rush
Tipton
Westmoreland
{time} 1059
Messrs. HIGGINS, HUNTER, ISRAEL, and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of
California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report 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. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 31, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to being unavoidably
detained, I missed the following rollcall vote: No. 31 on January 29,
2014.
If present, I would have voted: rollcall vote No. 31--H.R. 2642--
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 Conference
Report, On Passage, ``nay.''
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to attending a previously scheduled
event with President Obama in the 4th Congressional District of
Maryland, which I have the honor of representing in the House of
Representatives, I was absent from votes in the House this morhing
(Wednesday, January 29th) and missed rollcall vote 31. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 31 (final passage
of the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform
and Risk Management Act of 2013).
____________________