[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3991-H4007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5698, PROTECT AND SERVE ACT OF 
2018; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2372, VETERANS CEMETERY BENEFIT 
CORRECTION ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, AGRICULTURE 
                       AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 891

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5698) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to punish criminal 
     offenses targeting law enforcement officers, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2372) to amend 
     title 38, United States Code, to provide outer burial 
     receptacles for remains buried in National Parks, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 5674 as reported by 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, as modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) 
     to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural 
     and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 
     fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment pursuant to this 
     resolution, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
     motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in 
     order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

                              {time}  1230


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget and Empowerment Control Act of 1974, I make a 
point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 891.
  Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of 
that same act.
  Section 3 of House Resolution 891 states that: ``All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived.'' Therefore, I make a 
point of order pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act 
that this rule may not be considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, it was a Republican bill passed in 
a Republican Congress, but this act was supposed to stop Congress from 
passing bills that forced huge new costs on State and local governments 
without giving them the money to pay for those costs.
  Well, apparently it didn't work, because the farm bill, which is part 
of this rule, would impose massive new mandates on State and local 
governments in the Republican majority's quest to kick families off of 
SNAP.
  For anyone unfamiliar, that is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, which helps to feed millions of struggling American families 
every day. But one provision in the farm bill would force States to 
deny SNAP benefits to families with an absent parent unless those 
households cooperate with child support enforcement agencies.
  According to the CBO, that is the Congressional Budget Office, it is 
a nonpartisan group of experts that analyze this stuff. This additional 
burden on single-parent families would save

[[Page H3992]]

the Federal Government $4 billion, but my Republican colleagues don't 
seem to have thought this through, because it would cost child support 
agencies over $7 billion to recoup those child support payments. So 
they are spending $7 billion to recoup $4 billion.
  CBO, that is the group of nonpartisan experts, says that the cost to 
States, who have no say in this matter, would be over $1 billion.
  Now, I don't know who wrote this provision, since it sure didn't come 
out of the Agriculture Committee or the hearings that we conducted, but 
whoever it was, they really need to work on their basic arithmetic 
skills.
  When you spend $7 billion to recoup $4 billion, that is what I call a 
terrible idea, not legislating.
  Now, another unfunded mandate would require States to offer 
employment and training services to SNAP recipients as part of the 
bill's devastating new work requirements. But according to CBO, again, 
these are the nonpartisan experts, the bill won't provide States with 
enough funds to implement those training programs.
  So not only are Republicans heartlessly kicking 1 million Americans 
off of SNAP with these additional burdens, but they also are not 
providing States with enough money for training programs so that these 
people can find jobs and get their benefits back. I mean, you seriously 
can't make this stuff up.
  CBO, again, the Congressional Budget Office, those nonpartisan 
experts, reported yet another intergovernmental mandate that would 
prevent communities from restricting the use of dangerous pesticides, 
even if they determine the restrictions are necessary to protect 
children's health, like stopping harmful insecticides from being 
sprayed near schools or hospitals.
  This bill also requires that every State allow the sale of all legal 
agricultural products from other States, preempting States' food safety 
and environmental standards.
  Now, you heard me right. The Republicans are preventing local 
communities from protecting their children from toxic chemicals and 
forcing States to allow products that break laws meant to protect the 
health and safety of their own citizens.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought the Republicans were supposed to be all 
about States' rights. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was a Republican 
bill, as I mentioned.
  What about the rules of this institution? It is actually against 
House rules, believe it or not, to bring a bill to the floor that 
imposes unfunded mandates on State and local governments.
  Not a problem, Mr. Speaker. The Republican-controlled Rules 
Committee, or as I like to call it, the ``Break the Rules'' Committee, 
waived that rule and gave this disastrous farm bill a get-out-of-jail-
free card.
  But it turns out that waiving the unfunded mandates rule is also 
against the rules of the House. That is right. Republicans, once the 
party of States' rights, are rigging the rules and ignoring the law so 
that they can pass this disastrous bill.
  So here is a moment, I think, where liberals and conservatives can 
come together, where all my Republican friends who oppose unfunded 
mandates can join with many of us on the Democratic side and actually 
do something. This is your chance to prove it and to stand up and to be 
counted.
  Don't let the Rules Committee run roughshod over your values in the 
name of passing this lousy bill. Or maybe unfunded mandates on State 
and local governments are actually fine with my conservative friends 
just so long as they are imposed on a process that takes SNAP benefits 
away from millions of people.
  As I find myself saying far too often these days, a bad process 
produces bad policy. And this farm bill is a bad policy, plain and 
simple. It is not thought out. It is a bunch of unfunded mandates. It 
is a disaster.
  It is bad for the millions of working families, children, older 
adults, and other vulnerable Americans who will be kicked off of SNAP 
or see their benefits reduced. It is bad for farmers and ranchers, who 
are already suffering from low prices, low overhead, and market 
uncertainty, not to mention a new trade war, courtesy of Donald Trump. 
It is bad for State and local governments, who will have massive 
unpaid-for costs despite having no input whatsoever on the drafting of 
this bill.
  So let's send it back to the drawing table so we can sit down in a 
bipartisan way, in the bipartisan tradition of the Agriculture 
Committee, and come up with smart, compassionate, forward-thinking 
legislation instead of this.
  So I ask my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan way against 
considering this rule, which ignores the costs this bill imposes on 
State and local governments, in violation of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
  If you believe unfunded mandates are wrong, then you shouldn't 
support this rule. I mean, where are my conservative friends? Where is 
the Freedom Caucus, who rail about unfunded mandates? Where are you? I 
mean, I hope you are going to stand up and have the courage of your 
convictions and vote with us on this and send this bill back to 
committee, where we ought to do a farm bill in a bipartisan and a 
thoughtful way.
  This process has been lousy from the beginning, and now we have a 
bill that has all kinds of protections, because there are all kinds of 
unfunded mandates on our States.
  Wait till your governors begin to read the fine print in this farm 
bill, wait till your local agencies read the fine print in this farm 
bill.
  So if you are for unfunded mandates, then vote against what I am 
suggesting here today. But if you want to put an end to these unfunded 
mandates, then you need to take a stand.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of 
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't claim to know as much about the farm bill as my 
friend from Massachusetts does. He has the privilege of representing 
his constituents both on the Rules Committee and on the Ag Committee.
  I represent my constituents on the Rules Committee and on the Budget 
Committee. I work with CBO day in and day out, as my colleague knows.
  CBO is absolutely charged with being the nonpartisan scorekeeper in 
all of these budgetary matters. But as the gentleman recalls, having 
worked for a former member of the Rules Committee himself, when 
Republicans passed and President Clinton signed the unfunded mandates 
point of order, it was designed with one goal and one goal only in 
mind, and that was to make sure that when Congress acts, it considers 
the impacts of folks back home. It considers whether or not it is 
shirking a responsibility in Washington and shifting that 
responsibility to State and local governments back home.
  I will tell you with certainty, Mr. Speaker, that not a single Member 
on this side of the aisle has wavered in that commitment from when this 
bill passed in 1995 until today.
  What my friend from Massachusetts references are programs that are 
implemented by the States in order to receive a Federal benefit. We see 
this happen all the time, day in and day out. You get all the 
transportation money that you want, but you need to alter your speed 
limit if you want to receive that transportation money. You can get all 
the transportation money you want, but you need to deal with your 
drinking age if you want to get that money.
  What we are talking about today at its core, Mr. Speaker, is whether 
or not, at a time when we have the lowest unemployment rate in my 
lifetime, at a time when we have more jobs available to be filled in 
America than ever before in American history, whether it is a burden to 
say if you want to receive a Federal benefit, that being food stamps, 
that you should try to find a job first. If you can't find that job, we 
should get you enrolled in a job training program so that you can find 
the job.
  At the end of the day, the farm bill aims to do two things with the 
SNAP program: number one, is continue to provide a safety net for 
families in need. But number two, to make sure it remains that net and 
tries to lift folks

[[Page H3993]]

out of poverty instead of trap them in poverty for generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, this unfunded mandates point of order, I was in Congress 
at the time that it passed, has been a speed bump, a needed speed bump 
in the consideration of legislation time and time again.
  Now, sadly, more often than not, we see it as a dilatory tactic on 
the House floor. We see it raised as something just to try to slow down 
the process and gum up the works.
  That is not what is happening here today. I want to stipulate that 
that is true.
  My friend from Massachusetts raises a legitimate concern, but what I 
would say to my colleagues is this is a task, an obligation that has 
been placed on the States in consideration of receiving a Federal 
benefit. Folks are not mandated to do anything at all, but if we are to 
participate in the program, if folks are to continue to work through 
the program, if we are to get people back to work, if we are to provide 
this safety net, if we are to succeed on behalf of our constituents, as 
we all want to do, then we are going to have a partnership between the 
Federal Government and the State governments to make that happen.

                              {time}  1245

  Again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker. He is an 
authority on the farm bill and an authority on the SNAP program. But as 
far as the unfunded mandates point of order goes, I would encourage my 
colleagues to reject that request today and to vote in favor of 
proceeding with consideration of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague and anybody 
else to do something radical: actually read the CBO study.
  Basically, what it says here is that the bill would impose 
intergovernmental mandates by amending SNAP eligibility requirements, 
placing new responsibilities on States as administrators of child 
support enforcement, and requiring new State activities in the SNAP 
program.
  For large entitlement programs like SNAP and child support 
enforcement, UMRA defines an increase in the stringency of conditions 
on States and localities as an intergovernmental mandate if affected 
governments lack authority to offset those costs while continuing to 
provide required services. The bill's requirements would increase the 
workload of State agencies in areas where they have limited flexibility 
to amend their responsibilities and offset additional costs and, thus, 
would be intergovernmental mandates.
  In other words, on a whole range of issues, this bill requires States 
to do so much more, and the Federal Government does not provide the 
funding to meet those obligations. So if States want to provide SNAP 
benefits to their citizens, which I think every State continues to want 
to do, they are going to have to embrace all these unfunded mandates, 
add all these additional costs on to what they are already paying.
  These are big, fat unfunded mandates. And I want to tell you, when 
your Governors read this bill, when you read this bill, you are going 
to be amazed about all these additional burdens that are going to be 
imposed on States and localities. If this isn't an unfunded mandate, if 
this wasn't what that Republican initiative was all about when it was 
first implemented, I have no idea what it is.
  But I will tell you, even on the work training programs, this bill 
would provide maybe about $30 per person for education and training. We 
are told that education and training programs, on average, range from 
$7,000 to $14,000 to be effective. So this is an unfunded mandate, 
plain and simple. If you care about unfunded mandates, you are going to 
support us in our initiative here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I recognize my friend's passion. I tell you, this 
is not going to be the end of my friend's passion. We are going to be 
here for another hour, together, talking about the farm bill, and I 
suspect we will see even a new degree of passion because my friend from 
Massachusetts is incredibly committed to his point of view on the SNAP 
program.
  What I would tell you, Mr. Speaker--and I will speak on behalf of my 
Governor from the great State of Georgia; I will speak on behalf of my 
legislators and my administrators in the great State of Georgia--folks 
want to be a part of lifting people out of poverty. Nobody wants to be 
a part of trapping people in a cycle of poverty, and there is 
absolutely, Mr. Speaker, a degree of complicity that this Chamber has 
often been involved in by saying: This is the best we can do. We can't 
do any better, and we are just going to resign ourselves to the fact 
that generational poverty will continue. I say nonsense, and this bill 
is a step in the right direction.
  I share my friend's frustration that what should have been a 
bipartisan farm bill, what traditionally is a bipartisan farm bill, 
went off the rails somewhere in the process and folks walked away from 
the table. We can assign blame however we choose to do it; but in this 
case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that is going to take a 
major step forward in lifting folks out of poverty, a major step 
forward in putting people back to work, a major step forward in making 
sure that folks who receive Federal benefits are those who need Federal 
benefits, but those who have opportunities to do more and to do better 
for their families have partners in both their Federal and State 
governments to make that happen. I think that is what all my colleagues 
here want.
  I encourage my friends to reject my friend's point of order and to 
vote to consider this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 181, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               YEAS--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)

[[Page H3994]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Beyer
     Brown (MD)
     Cardenas
     Chu, Judy
     DeGette
     Engel
     Gabbard
     Gutierrez
     Labrador
     Lipinski
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     McNerney
     Reed
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Roskam
     Shea-Porter
     Shuster
     Thornberry
     Webster (FL)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1316

  Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), an Ag Committee member and my fellow 
Rules Committee member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  I thank my colleagues for standing with me to consider this rule and 
then these three underlying measures today.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today, House Resolution 
891, makes in order three pieces of legislation. The one that you heard 
discussed already today is H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 
2018. Two other measures included in this rule are H.R. 5698, the 
Protect and Serve Act of 2018, and S. 2372, the VA MISSION Act of 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, this week is Police Week, and police 
officers serving our communities every day with distinction get this 1 
week a year that we all take a moment to pause and say thank you. 
President Trump made that point yesterday just outside the Capitol 
talking about these heroes who put their life on the line absolutely 
every day.
  To quote the President, he said: ``Your moms and dads were among the 
bravest Americans to ever live'' when he was talking to the children of 
fallen officers. Of course, he was absolutely right.
  For that reason I am particularly pleased that the rule today brings 
up the Protect and Serve Act of 2018. It brings it to the floor under a 
structured amendment process. The bill makes it a Federal crime to 
intentionally cause or to attempt to cause serious bodily harm to any 
law enforcement officer. I say that again, Mr. Speaker. It makes it a 
Federal crime to attempt to cause or intentionally cause serious bodily 
harm to any law enforcement officer.
  Mr. Speaker, we are trying to speak in the absolute strongest terms 
when we speak on behalf of our men and women in law enforcement 
uniforms. In fact, just last night in the Rules Committee, my friend, 
Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, said there is virtually no 
disagreement between the parties and the Chambers on this legislation.
  Another bill we can agree on, Mr. Speaker, is the VA MISSION Act. In 
fact, I was with one of The American Legion chapters in our district 
just Monday talking about the very provisions in this bill and how they 
can make a substantive difference for our men and women who have served 
us in the Armed Forces.
  This is a four corners agreement bill, Mr. Speaker, and by four 
corners, I mean the chairmen and the ranking members on the House side 
and on the Senate side have agreed on this legislation. They have 
worked together on this legislation, and they have put it together in a 
way that we can all be proudly supportive of that final product.
  Let me tell you what this bill will do in specifics, Mr. Speaker.
  It consolidates seven duplicative community care programs into one 
program that is easier for our veterans to understand and to access. It 
ensures that the Veterans Choice Program has enough funding to continue 
working for our veterans for yet another year as the committees 
continue to perfect that program. I am sure you hear the same 
constructive counsel that I do, Mr. Speaker. Good for Congress for 
letting us opt out so that we can get the services we need quickly. But 
the Veterans Choice Program still has work to do to get those 
agreements approved promptly and get those doctors reimbursed promptly.
  The VA MISSION Act, Mr. Speaker, also creates a fair and transparent 
process for a comprehensive audit of the VA's physical facilities. 
Where are those regions of the country that are underserved? Where are 
those regions of the country where consolidation would better serve?
  The VA can transform its aging infrastructure. This bill provides a 
comprehensive audit process so that we can modernize the VA for today's 
veterans. It expands the caregiver program, Mr. Speaker, to provide the 
benefits to pre-9/11 veterans so that they are in parity with those 
benefits of post-9/11 veterans, and it provides VA provider recruitment 
and retention efforts so that our veterans have access to those medical 
personnel that they desperately need.
  These reforms aren't just supported by those four corners that I 
mentioned, the Republicans and Democrats who lead the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee in the House and who lead the committees in the Senate, but 
they are also supported by over 30 veterans' service organizations from 
across the country, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Roe highlighted in the 
Rules Committee just last night.
  I don't pretend that these measures do everything for everyone, Mr. 
Speaker. They do not. But it is another in a long step of bills making 
progress on behalf of the American people. Whether we are talking about 
our men and women in law enforcement uniforms, Mr. Speaker, or whether 
we are talking about our men and women who have worn our military 
uniforms, it is another example of how Chairman Roe

[[Page H3995]]

and Ranking Member Walz and our colleagues in the Senate are taking 
steps forward to repay our debts.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we have already heard discussed, this rule 
would make in order H.R. 2, our Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. 
It doesn't just make in order the base text, Mr. Speaker, it also makes 
in order 20 amendments that have been offered by both Republicans and 
Democrats in this Chamber who would like to try to make that bill even 
better. Twenty amendments have been made in order already, and when we 
finish debate here on the floor, my colleague from Massachusetts and I 
will return to the Rules Committee upstairs, and we will consider yet 
another round of amendments this afternoon so that we can continue to 
perfect this bill throughout the week.

  Mr. Speaker, one rule, three bills--three bills that have the ability 
to make a difference for families across the country north, south, 
east, and west. I hope my colleagues will support this rule, get 
involved in that underlying debate, and support those bills on final 
passage as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just said one 
rule three bills, which has become kind of a habit around here where we 
try to bunch a whole bunch of bills together in one rule so we don't 
actually focus on any one issue in a way that is meaningful. It is, I 
think, an attempt to try to stifle debate.
  We have a bill that would protect our police. We have a bill that 
would deal with veterans. And then we have the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, 
I want to focus on the farm bill, if I may.
  I have served on the Agriculture Committee since 2011. Historically, 
it has been one of the most--if not the most--bipartisan committee in 
the House of Representatives. That is how farm bills are normally 
crafted, through compromise and through a coalition of Members from 
urban and rural America coming together to get something done.
  That is why I have always had faith in this process--faith that 
minority views would be heard. Even when it wasn't easy and even when 
the final product wasn't perfect, the end product was traditionally 
bipartisan. Until today.
  The process for this farm bill was a sham. In no way did it reflect 
the Agriculture Committee's long, bipartisan tradition. I am the 
ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, and even I wasn't able to 
see a word of text until this bill was publicly released. I am not even 
sure when Republicans on the subcommittee first saw the language.
  Over the last 2\1/2\ years, the Agriculture Committee held 23 
hearings on SNAP. Apparently, they were just for show, because not a 
single witness--Democrat or Republican--recommended any of the drastic 
cuts or draconian policy changes to SNAP included in this Republican 
farm bill.
  When our distinguished ranking member on the committee, Mr. Peterson, 
was finally asked for Democratic feedback on the nutrition title, he 
gave a long, thoughtful list of objections and suggested changes. His 
input was ignored with the majority changing barely a handful of words 
in this whole bill.
  The Republican farm bill is filled with controversial provisions, and 
no one will tell us how they even got into the bill. Believe me, Mr. 
Speaker, I have asked. I can't get an answer. Maybe President Trump's 
ethically challenged White House opened its doors even wider to 
lobbyists and let them write key parts of this bill. Or perhaps an 
arch-conservative think tank was given the chance to airdrop its wish 
list into the bill.
  But I suspect something more mundane and damaging. I think the 
Speaker viewed this bill as his last chance to enact sweeping cuts to 
safety net programs before he retires. Even the number of this bill, 
H.R. 2, was always reserved by the Speaker for his so-called welfare 
reform bill.
  So I warn my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: make no mistake. 
This legislation is a transformation of our social safety net dressed 
up as a farm bill. It beats up, belittles, and demonizes poor people 
all across this country. It doesn't even try to put lipstick on this 
pig.
  Mr. Speaker, last week it was reported that the Republican Conference 
brought in communicator Frank Luntz to try to wordsmith how Republicans 
can justify supporting this bill. They must be terrified. They know 
that just explaining the reality would appall and enrage most 
Americans.
  Now, Mr. Luntz is the same guy who helped craft Speaker Gingrich's 
Contract with America. He earned PolitiFact's lie of the year in 2010 
for one of his debunked claims on healthcare reform and even tried once 
in an interview to turn the term Orwellian into something positive. Mr. 
Speaker, he has his work cut out for him here because I don't even 
think Mr. Luntz can wordsmith something so cruel into something 
positive.
  Now, here is how mean this bill really is. SNAP is our Nation's 
premier anti-hunger program, our first line of defense against hunger. 
People, including the most vulnerable among us--kids, the disabled, and 
the elderly--turn to it when there is no other option. For them, there 
is no plan B when they are struggling to figure out where their next 
meal is coming from. With this bill, Republicans are cutting SNAP by 
over $20 billion. Millions of people would see their benefits slashed, 
and many would be cut off from assistance entirely.

                              {time}  1330

  Why are the Republicans doing this?
  To pay for hoisting their latest unproven and way underfunded State-
based workforce bureaucracy experiment on the entire Nation. That is 
why. I say ``unproven'' because I don't see any evidence or studies 
suggesting that any of this will even work. In fact, I have a study 
here that points out the flaws in this proposal.
  It expands work requirements for poor parents while making 
millionaires and billionaires eligible for subsidies even if they don't 
live or work on a farm.
  You can't make this stuff up. There is no evidence that this approach 
is effective. We have no idea whether States have the manpower or 
infrastructure to take this on. We have no idea how much it will cost 
States to put a recipient through a job training program. This bill 
would give States just $30 to train each person, when we know it costs 
thousands of dollars per person to fund robust job training programs.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if this weren't so serious.
  Currently, States are testing the effectiveness of job training 
programs as a way to help SNAP recipients move out of poverty. But we 
aren't expecting to get the results of these pilot programs until 2021.
  Shouldn't we wait to see the results of State pilot programs? 
Shouldn't we wait until we know what might work and what doesn't? Why 
should we force our Governors and States to gamble on a sweeping, 
untested bureaucracy that appears doomed to failure?
  Clearly, the Republicans aren't going to let a lack of facts stop 
them from creating this massive, new government bureaucracy that will 
affect millions of vulnerable Americans. This is from a party that 
claims to want a government so small, they could drown it in a bathtub. 
Apparently, they want a government just small enough to leave millions 
of poor and working Americans with nowhere to turn.
  This isn't about helping people; this is about putting up roadblocks 
that make nutrition assistance difficult, if not impossible, to get.
  This legislation also severs the link between SNAP and the Low Income 
Heating Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. This connection is what 
has allowed disabled and working families to receive credit for out-of-
pocket heating and cooling expenses without unnecessary trips to the 
SNAP office. But the changes in this bill would force recipients to 
make those unnecessary trips, and they would lead to more hassles and 
avoidable errors and people falling through the cracks.

[[Page H3996]]

  I think the Republican leaders in the House are the only people on 
this planet who believe that creating unnecessary hassles count as some 
kind of laudable reform.
  The Republican farm bill would also eliminate broad-based categorical 
eligibility. This has been a critical option that States have used to 
help working families with kids and seniors during tough times. More 
than 40 States today use this option, including 12 States with 
Republican Governors. Eliminating it would cause 400,000 eligible 
households--close to 1 million people--to lose their food benefits. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 265,000 students 
will lose access to free school lunches if this bill were to become 
law.
  You know, when I was growing up, it was school bullies that went 
after kids' lunch money; it wasn't the United States Congress. This is 
shameful.
  But let's also be clear here that eliminating broad-based categorical 
eligibility would throw close to 1 million people off of SNAP who work. 
Basically, it would deny SNAP benefits to people who earn under $16,000 
a year.
  Mr. Speaker, what the hell is wrong with this place?
  These people can't get through the year on that. That is not enough 
to feed one's self or one's family.
  The Republican Congress, who rushed to raise taxes on 86 million 
middle class families to pay for a tax cut for large corporations and 
the richest 1 percent, is now trying to stop kids from getting school 
lunches and taking assistance away from families struggling with 
hunger.
  This entire Congress has been one long, slow march toward making life 
harder for the poor, the hungry, and working Americans. I am tired of a 
Congress that prioritizes the rich, that looks out only for the 
wealthy.
  The legislation we take up here today should reflect our values. But 
this bill doesn't reflect my values, Mr. Speaker. This is a farm bill 
that doesn't even make significant improvements to our agricultural 
programs to help farmers who are caught in the middle of the 
President's trade war.
  It is an attack on those living in poverty. It trades in stereotypes 
to justify shredding our social safety net, and it is hell-bent on 
making hunger worse in this country. This Republican farm bill is 
disgusting, and the process that got us here is disgusting.
  By the way, just so Members are clear, the average SNAP benefit is 
$1.40 per person per meal. I say to my colleagues, you try living on 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I agree 
with my friend. Asking single, working-age, healthy, nondisabled men to 
go to work is going to make their life harder. Going to work every day 
is hard. But I would also say to my friend that it is going to make 
their life better. It is a value that we should share, not a value that 
we should repudiate.
  This happens to be an area of disagreement, Mr. Speaker. There are so 
many areas of agreement we could be focusing on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
good work that was done there and the VA MISSION Act, which improves 
access to care for our veterans, funds the Choice Program, and expands 
the caregivers program for pre-9/11 veterans.
  I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work 
on this important legislation. I would particularly like to applaud the 
inclusion of the VA Medical Scribes Pilot Act. This was legislation 
that I helped write with Chairman Roe to set up a pilot program for 
including scribes in primary care teams at the VA.
  Research in the private sector has shown that allowing scribes to 
handle electronic health records allows the healthcare providers, the 
doctors, to do more of what they do best, which is to treat the 
patients. So we have doctors treating patients rather than spending 
their valuable time doing paperwork.
  Chairman Roe joined me in my district last fall on a tour of the VA 
clinic in White City, Oregon, where we heard firsthand about the 
administrative challenges the VA doctors face and how that affects 
their ability to care for veterans. The underlying bill that we will 
bring to the floor will help. The entire bill will help. This will help 
our docs have more time to spend with their patients.
  We will continue to work with the VA on their implementation of this 
program, but I am pleased that it was included in the underlying 
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  Once again, I applaud the entire Veterans Affairs Committee on their 
work to give veterans the access to healthcare they have earned and 
deserve. I urge support and passage of the underlying VA MISSION Act 
and approval of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Under this bill, somebody who is working and earns like $15,800 a 
year up to like $23,000 a year, who works right now, and who currently 
receives SNAP would lose it under this. This is how you are rewarding 
their work. I just find that appalling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
cruel and partisan safety net cuts masquerading as the farm bill.
  The farm bill has long been a partisan cause, offering assistance and 
security to farmers and needy families alike in a way that both 
Democrats and Republicans can support. But this extreme bill cuts more 
than $23 billion from nutrition assistance programs through eligibility 
restrictions, kicking a projected 1 million households off the SNAP 
program and reducing benefits for millions more.
  Let me be clear: these are vital, lifesaving benefits to help 
Americans put food on the table during moments of need. The average 
family spends just 10 months on SNAP, receiving assistance just long 
enough to get back on their feet. At the same time, the program helps 
set our kids up for success. Hungry children perform worse in school, 
and studies have shown that children on SNAP achieve higher test scores 
and are more likely to graduate from high school. Children on SNAP 
achieve higher test scores and succeed, and they have the opportunity 
to do well later in life.
  Mr. Speaker, the partisan approach was the wrong way on tax reform, 
it was the wrong way on healthcare, and it is the wrong way now. I urge 
my Republican colleagues to abandon this party-line legislation and 
instead approach the farm bill in the fair, bipartisan manner we have 
in the past.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with my friend. I think, as a general rule, partisan 
approaches are the wrong way. This is certainly not what my chairman 
desired. It is certainly not where any of us wanted to end up. When 
folks walk away from the table, it is where we do in fact end up.
  This is the start of the process. This is not the end of the process. 
I regret the way that this has sorted out for my ag friends. But we 
can't do nothing because folks have gotten up and walked away from the 
table. We have to continue to do what our constituents have asked us to 
do, and this is a good step in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to provisions of 
this bill which attack bedrock environmental laws and recklessly 
promote logging over clean water, recreation, and wildlife.
  In a district like mine, where the holdings of the U.S. Forest 
Service are extensive, this bill is a critical part of helping to 
protect our economy, our way of life, and the way we enjoy our public 
lands.
  Title 8 of the bill includes blatant attempts that undermine the 
Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the roadless area conservation rule. 
This bill allows for congressional exemptions--basically, an earmark--
to prevent environmental reviews and public comment periods that 
actually prevent communities from having a say over what happens quite 
literally in their backyard. I think that we need to make sure that we 
involve our local communities. This bill empowers Washington,

[[Page H3997]]

D.C., decisionmakers by taking that control away from our communities.
  It weakens the Endangered Species Act by eliminating scientific 
expert opinion about whether projects would harm endangered species and 
their critical habitats, and it prioritizes logging over recreation, 
even going so far as shifting incentives to emphasize logging over 
environmental restoration in other areas that support the outdoor 
recreation economy, one of the biggest sources of jobs in my district 
and in my State.
  Before the ink is even dry on the omnibus, this farm bill threatens 
to renege on the bipartisan wildfire budget deal with more proposals 
that weaken protections and mitigation on our public lands.
  In my State, the 6,000-acre congressional exemption or earmark would 
have a detrimental impact, but it would have an even worse impact on 
the much smaller Eastern and Midwestern forests, where 6,000 acres 
would vastly exceed the annual sustainable maximum harvest.
  When the Forest Service needs to do a 6,000-acre project, it already 
can. It needs to take input from the public nearby in our neighborhoods 
and in our communities about how they would be affected. Of course, it 
should consider how water, soil, and wildlife habitat can be protected.
  For years, congressional debate over forest management has been 
framed by the need to address hazardous fuels for wildfires. This bill 
takes a step away from that and makes it clear that reform efforts 
weren't actually about wildfire; they are about efforts to give away 
our public lands to timber and other industries and silence the voice 
of residents.
  Congress should stop trying to legislate logging projects and take 
control. Washington should allow our communities to have a say. The 
Forest Service has many tools today that include local input. All 
Americans deserve is a say in how our public lands are managed. 
Endangered species should certainly not be sacrificed just so more of 
our forests can be logged.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 120 
conservation groups opposed to these harmful forestry provisions in 
H.R. 2, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
                                                     May 11, 2018.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters we urge you to strongly oppose the extreme and 
     divisively partisan federal forest provisions in the Forestry 
     Title of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), 
     also known as ``the House Farm Bill.''
       The legislation is replete with provisions that undermine 
     bedrock environmental laws, including the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act 
     (ESA), and Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). 
     This bill consistently prioritizes the logging industry over 
     all other forest stakeholders. It would cause irreparable 
     harm to our federal forests, the millions of Americans who 
     depend on them for clean drinking water, subsistence, 
     recreation, and economic benefit, and the wildlife that call 
     them home.
       The federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill also 
     run contrary to the wildfire funding agreement reached only 
     weeks ago in the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus. A deal was only 
     reached after significant environmental concessions to pro-
     logging hardliners, even though a comprehensive wildfire 
     funding solution had solid bi-partisan support in both 
     chambers going into the omnibus negotiation.
       Ignoring that compromise, H.R. 2 would allow logging, 
     grazing, and many other activities on up to 6,000-acres--
     almost 10 square miles for each single project--without any 
     NEPA review or disclosure of potential harms. The numerous 
     new exemptions are double the size of the legislated NEPA 
     exclusion just passed in the omnibus deal and they also 
     eliminate the requirement, preserved in the omnibus 
     agreement, to consider cumulative effects and ``extraordinary 
     circumstances'' such as wilderness areas and endangered 
     species.
       This partisan bill also goes further than the omnibus deal 
     on the ESA, allowing federal land management agencies to 
     ``self-consult'' on whether their actions would harm 
     threatened and endangered species even though such self-
     consultation has already been declared unlawful by the 
     courts. Additionally, it attacks the landmark Roadless Rule, 
     makes resource management and forest stewardship dependent on 
     logging revenue, creating a perverse incentive, and 
     jeopardizes fire-vulnerable communities by deprioritizing 
     hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the Wildland Urban 
     Interface.
       The harmful federal forest proposals in this legislation 
     solve no problem; they only add controversy to the House Farm 
     Bill and weaken its chances of becoming law.
       For all of these reasons we strongly urge you to OPPOSE the 
     federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill and any 
     amendments that further undermine environmental safeguards on 
     our federal forests.
           Thank you,
       Alaska Wilderness League; Allegheny Defense Project; Alpine 
     Lakes Protection Society; Appalachian Voices; Arise for 
     Social Justice; Bark; Beaver Valley Preservation Alliance; 
     California Native Plant Society; Cascade Forest Conservancy; 
     Cascadia Wildlands; Center for Biological Diversity; Center 
     for Sierra Nevada Conservation; Cherokee Forest Voices; 
     Christians For The Mountains; Climate Change Major Disaster 
     Declaration Campaign; Colorado Native Plant Society; 
     Conservation Colorado; Conservation Congress; Conservation 
     Northwest; Darby Creek Valley Association.
       Defenders of Wildlife; Dolores River Boating Advocates; 
     Earth Island Institute's John Muir Project; Earthjustice; 
     Endangered Species Coalition; EnviroAce, LLC; Environmental 
     Protection Information Center; Friends of Bell Smith Springs; 
     Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends of Lake Monroe; Friends of 
     Plumas Wilderness; Friends of the Bitterroot; Friends of the 
     Inyo; Georgia ForestWatch; Grand Canyon Trust; Great Old 
     Broads for Wilderness; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Grand 
     Junction Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Rio 
     Grande Valley Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--
     Select Roaring Fork Broadband; Greater Hells Canyon Council.
       Greenvironment, LLC; Heartwood; High Country Conservation 
     Advocates; Hoosier Environmental Council; Idaho Conservation 
     League; Indiana Forest Alliance; Izaak Walton League Bush 
     Lake Chapter; Izaak Walton League Cass Count Chapter; Izaak 
     Walton League W.J. McCabe Chapter; Kentucky Conservation 
     Committee; Kentucky Environmental Foundation; Kentucky 
     Heartwood; Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.; Kettle Range 
     Conservation Group; Klamath Forest Alliance; KS Wild; La 
     Cueva Guardians; League of Conservation Voters; Los Padres 
     ForestWatch; Mass Forest Rescue Campaign.
       Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America; Montana 
     Wilderness Association; MountainTrue; National Parks 
     Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
     Nature Abounds; Nature for All; New Mexico Sportsmen; New 
     Mexico Wild; New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; New Mexico 
     Wildlife Federation; New River Alliance of Climbers; North 
     Cascades Conservation Council; Northcoast Environmental 
     Center; Ohio Environmental Council; Olympic Forest Coalition; 
     Olympic Park Associates; Once a Forest; Oregon Wild; 
     Partnership for Policy Integrity.
       Partnership for the National Trails System; PennFuture; 
     Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Public Lands Media; 
     RESTORE: The North Woods; Rocky Mountain Recreation 
     Initiative; Rocky Mountain Wild; San Juan Citizens Alliance; 
     San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council; Sangre de Cristo Audubon 
     Society; Santa Fe Forest Coalition; Save Our Sky Blue Waters; 
     Sequoia ForestKeeper; Shawnee Forest Sentinels; Sheep 
     Mountain Alliance; Sheltowee Trace Association; Sierra Club; 
     Sierra Forest Legacy; Sky Island Alliance; Southern 
     Environmental Law Center.
       Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment; 
     Speak for the Trees; Tennessee Wild; The Enviro Show; The 
     Lands Council; The Wilderness Society; Tulare County Audubon 
     Society; Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.; Virginia Wilderness 
     Committee; Water Stone Outdoors; West Virginia Environmental 
     Council; West Virginia Highlands Conservancy; West Virginia 
     Rivers Coalition; West Virginia Wilderness Coalition; Western 
     Environmental Law Center; White Mountain Conservation League; 
     WildEarth Guardians; Wilderness Workshop; Winter Wildlands 
     Alliance; Zumbro Valley Audubon.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the farm economy is the biggest contributor to Georgia 
GDP. Georgia families wake up every day back home and go out and often, 
in some cases, are working land that their father worked before them 
and their grandfather worked before them.
  We have had the Georgia Farm Bureau in town pleading with us to bring 
some certainty to ag policy.
  There are two parts to a farm bill, for all the reasons that folks 
who got here long before I did can explain: why it is we do a food 
stamp half of a farm bill and an actual farmer half of the farm bill.
  It is so often true that the SNAP program gets all the conversation, 
Mr. Speaker. But as you heard from my friend from Colorado, while the 
money is not where the farmers and those farm families are, that is 
certainly where the policy is.
  It has been true time and time again that, in a collaborative, 
bipartisan, bicameral way, we have come together as a House and a 
Senate and moved policy forward to provide market certainty for those 
farmers.
  You don't always appreciate the farmers in your community, Mr. 
Speaker, when you can go to the grocery store and grab anything you 
want

[[Page H3998]]

at absolutely any time you want. Those things don't happen by accident. 
They happen with a whole lot of sweat equity, a whole lot of risk-
taking, and, candidly, with a whole lot of prayer going on across farm 
communities in this land.

                              {time}  1345

  This bill responds to some of the marketplace needs that we are 
finding in the 21st century. You are going to see those collaborative 
veins throughout this measure, Mr. Speaker. I hope my colleagues will 
look not just at the SNAP program, but also at the certainty that we 
will provide to the very hardworking farm families across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for his comments. I think, again, if the gentleman reads this bill, he 
and his farmers should be concerned about this bill because it does not 
increase support for our farm safety net and support prices. So we have 
a lot of farmers who are deeply concerned about that part of the bill 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. 
If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, which provides the fix 
needed to implement the VA MISSION Act to ensure that it is not 
hindered by budget caps.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).
  Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, the VA MISSION Act is a good bill. I support 
it.
  For too long, our veterans could really question whether this 
government means it when we say that we value their service. We cannot 
erase those doubts in one day or in one bill, but we can take a 
positive step forward, and we are doing that today. Both parties are 
doing that together.
  Together, we are finally giving all caregivers the tools they need 
for the heroic work that they do. We are strengthening VA at its core 
by attracting the best and the brightest to work there, and we are 
giving veterans a real choice to seek the best treatment anywhere, 
whether in or outside of the VA.
  This is a good bill, but it is not perfect. We owe it to our veterans 
and to the taxpayers to explain how we will pay for this.
  There is a strict cap on VA's budget, and the MISSION Act will bust 
that cap, so all of the good things in the MISSION Act will trigger 
harsh, automatic cuts in the rest of VA's budget. This will force the 
VA to rob Peter to pay Paul.
  This is not hypothetical. One year from now, these cuts will be 
triggered, and a veteran today would be right to ask if his favorite 
nurse will be laid off or if the old and slow computer systems at the 
VA will get even older and even slower. The money has to come from 
somewhere in the VA's budget.
  But there is another way. The money we are spending today does not 
have to count against the budget cap. That budget cap was set before we 
ever made these improvements to the VA. It is a separate issue, and the 
cap number shouldn't hold us back. My bill, H.R. 5805, would simply 
count the new money as separate so that it does not bust the rest of 
the VA's budget.
  Mr. Speaker, both sides of this House are working together to improve 
the VA. That is a great thing. Let's not make it any harder than it 
already is. Instead, let's finish the job. We have to spend what it 
takes to get the job done. No more, but also no less.
  Our veterans are looking to us to make the VA stronger, not weaker. 
The workers of the VA are depending upon us to give them what they need 
for their mission. Automatic budget cuts will not accomplish that 
mission.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides to help us, help our veterans, and 
help our workers. Vote ``no'' on the motion on ordering the previous 
question so that my bill, H.R. 5805, can be made in order.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my first time on the floor with our new colleague 
from Pennsylvania. I appreciate not just his service here, but his 
service to our country in general. I feel his pain.
  It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill, and we have got ways 
to do it. I have been here 7 years. I come down here time and time 
again to find good bills, Mr. Speaker, and I am always frustrated that 
we can't get it there.
  What I have determined, Mr. Speaker, that I will share with you and 
with my friend from Pennsylvania is that the reason is because you 
folks don't agree with me. That is what I have decided is why I can't 
get to those perfect bills, because try as I might, I cannot get 434 
other people to agree with me on everything all the time.
  I will tell my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, the most 
discouraging day I have had in this institution was after we passed the 
Budget Control Act and we picked four of our finest Republicans and 
four of our finest Democrats from the House and also four from the 
Senate--Republicans, Democrats--and we locked them in a room together 
for 3 months. We said: Look at some of these mandatory spending 
programs like you have talked about. Look at the discretionary 
programs. Across-the-board budget cuts are nonsensical. They don't 
reflect American priorities at all. So get together, talk to one 
another, work through it, and figure out a way that we can make the 
books balance so we don't mortgage our children's and our 
grandchildren's futures but so that we also keep the commitments that 
we have made to families today.
  They met for 3 months, and they walked out of that room having looked 
at hundreds of trillions of dollars in Federal spending and agreed on 
not one penny of change together. I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker--well, 
you remember how discouraging that day was.
  Moving these dollars from mandatory spending to discretionary 
spending is absolutely going to put additional pressures on the budget 
process--I see my friend from Minnesota nodding his head; he is a true 
champion for our veterans--but, by golly, we have got to stand up and 
say yes to those dollars.
  I got excoriated back home for voting in favor of raising the 
nondefense discretionary limits, but I have to go home and tell the 
story of how I am meeting promises to veterans that were not going to 
get met otherwise. I have got to go home and tell the story about how I 
am meeting promises for children that weren't going to get met 
otherwise. And I have got to go home and tell the story of how I don't 
have 218 votes to do it my way, and the only way to get anything done 
around here is in partnership.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a better example than the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Walz' leadership, Dr. Roe's 
leadership. Time and time again, I see these two men go and not follow 
their own hearts and passions but try to do what is best for everyone, 
try to find a way forward when folks had bet against them and said you 
couldn't find a way forward.
  I hear the concerns of my new colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Speaker, and I believe he is absolutely right; we are going to run up 
against that conversation next year. The question is will we have the 
courage to stand up together and fund those priorities next year.
  I am looking forward to the great outpouring of bipartisanship we are 
going to see in support of the VA MISSION Act today, and I will look 
forward to the great outpouring of support when the funding time comes 
to make sure we are as committed to those promises tomorrow as we are 
together this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts and my 
friend from Georgia. We are going to see some camaraderie down here. I 
agree with the gentleman on this. And I thank Mr. Lamb for pointing out

[[Page H3999]]

clearly what needs to be done to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. This is one of 
those cases, and I think this is important on the rule, because, Mr. 
Speaker, we may know it in here, but for Americans who are watching 
this, the rule is how we have this debate. And this is an honest 
debate.
  To be absolutely clear, there is no one in this Chamber who disagrees 
on the care for veterans. How we get there is what is different. On 
these amendments that Mr. Lamb was proposing to offer or other things 
that we would like to bring up to fix this, we should debate it here.
  Dr. Roe, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, did 
this. He had an open rule. I brought up my amendment, it was debated, 
and I lost. That is democracy. I understand that. But it is the 
conversation that brings our Members in that gets us to consensus.
  So, by structuring a closed rule--for the American people watching 
this, we already know what the score is of this game. We already know 
what is going to happen ahead of time. It is in this deliberative body 
that we should be having a detailed debate on this very proposal and 
then voting it down.
  I think we say it because of time; we say it because of constraint; 
we say it because we want to control the flow of what happens here. 
Well, maybe the American people don't want that flow a little bit.
  We should have this debate, and I will accept losing an argument. 
What I cannot accept is five people up in a room up on the third floor 
here making something out of order that is clearly in order, and 
whether it is accepted or not should at least be debated.
  So I don't disagree with the gentleman's assessment. He is right 
about us trying to find common ground. There is going to be a lot of 
support on this piece of legislation when it comes up, but I think not 
having an open rule and an honest debate is selling us short from 
getting toward a more perfect bill--not perfect, a more perfect bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed 
rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers 
remaining, so I am prepared to close when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is, but I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we aren't done, so if the gentleman would 
like to yield me some time, that would be great.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying Republican farm bill, which could devastate working 
families, seniors, and the vulnerable who rely on food assistance.
  Currently, more than 41 million Americans receive benefits through 
the Federal food assistance program known as SNAP. Close to two-thirds 
are children, the elderly, and the disabled. However, this partisan 
bill would reduce SNAP benefits by $23.3 billion, denying hundreds of 
thousands of American families who rely on this food support. Millions 
more will see their benefits reduced because Republicans are recklessly 
increasing the burden on recipients and changing eligibility 
requirements.
  In December, Republicans passed a tax bill benefiting the wealthiest 
Americans and the most powerful corporate special interests. This 
Republican tax scam increases our national debt by $2 trillion over the 
next 10 years, and now our Republican colleagues are hypocritically 
trying to pay for these huge tax cuts for the wealthy by taking away 
resources for Americans who need them most.
  Republicans are using this formerly bipartisan process to continue to 
undermine the well-being of children, the elderly, and the disabled to 
give gifts to the wealthy. This goes against everything we stand for as 
a country.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose 
the bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is outrageous. What it is 
doing is breaking what has been traditionally a bipartisan commitment 
to including a nutrition title that helps people in all of our 
districts who need the food. This bill has had no process. It is a 
continuation of an effort to ratchet down any help that Americans need.
  That healthcare bill was going to help on healthcare by taking it 
away from 24 million people. This nutrition bill, supposedly, is going 
to help people by taking $23 billion worth of benefits away from 
children, veterans, the elderly, and the disabled who need that food.
  Why?
  Well, there is a reason. We passed a tax cut. By the way, it wasn't 
paid for. $2.3 trillion added to the deficit for a tax bill where 87 
percent of the benefits go to wealthy multinational corporations and 
individuals earning over $890,000 a year.
  Well, the bill has come due, and we have a proposal here to come up 
with $23 billion to pay for it, and that is taking meals off the table 
of disabled people.
  And, by the way, the work requirement, what is it really? Because 
that sounds good.
  By the way, who doesn't want to work? Everybody wants to work. You 
need a job.
  We are going to pay for this so-called work requirement by taking 
money away from nutrition, paying bureaucrats, and giving them the 
impossible job of putting people who are not able to work into jobs 
that don't exist. Talk about cynical; that is what this bill is.
  I am from Vermont where we have lots of folks who need help, and we 
have lots of Vermonters who, with very little money, with enormous 
volunteer effort, are doing things that put meals, good meals, on the 
tables of those families.
  Don't pass this farm bill that takes that nutrition away from our 
Vermonters and our American citizens.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Minnesota mentioned folks who might be 
watching this debate from their offices or from their homes. I think it 
is a shame that we don't often get to the core of what some of our 
disagreements are.
  As we sit here today, it is a fact that there are more job openings 
in America than at any other time in American history. That is a fact.
  It is a fact that, as we sit here getting ready to move further into 
the new millennium, there are more able-bodied single men out of the 
workforce than ever before--that is a fact--folks who have decided not 
to work.
  Now, there is no disagreement in this body about providing food 
assistance to hungry kids--none. None. The disagreement in this body is 
whether or not, with more job openings than ever before in American 
history, with more employers saying they cannot find workers, with more 
employers saying ``we need to find new visa programs to get unskilled 
labor into America because we don't have enough unskilled workers to do 
the work here in America''--should the working families who pay the 
bills in this country support able-bodied, childless, healthy men?

                              {time}  1400

  That is part of the question, and I would think that is something on 
which we can agree. But we are not going to have that pointed 
conversation, Mr. Speaker, because there are more sympathetic targets 
to go after.
  If you walk in to a USDA facility or your State facility that is 
administrating and you apply for food stamps, Mr. Speaker, if you 
qualify for food stamps, you will get them. You heard my friend from 
Massachusetts reference categorical eligibility. That means if you 
qualify for a different benefit, not food stamps, we will throw in food 
stamps, too.
  Well, now, to be fair, that idea came about in some conservative 
circles, as well, to say let's eliminate some of the paperwork 
requirements. Let's make it easier for folks to apply for a whole host 
of benefits. But categorical eligibility, as it exists today, Mr. 
Speaker, says you don't qualify for the benefit on your own, but you do 
if you--if you qualify for a second benefit, we will give you this one 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, saying that you are going to eliminate categorical 
eligibility is to say you are going to give food stamps to people who 
qualify for food stamps. You are going to give

[[Page H4000]]

SNAP benefits to people who qualify for SNAP benefits. If one wants to 
expand the pool of people who qualify for SNAP benefits, that is a 
debate that we can have.
  But time and time again, Mr. Speaker, there are things on which we 
agree in this Chamber. Programs should follow the rules that programs 
have. People who qualify should get benefits. People who don't qualify 
shouldn't.
  We are going to continue to have this conversation in the next couple 
of days, and it is going to continue to be highlighted as a source of 
vast disagreement among us. But if we were having this same 
conversation back home around the dinner table, if we were having this 
same conversation back home at a local park or veterans organization, 
we would say the very same thing: Hungry kids should have access to 
food, on this we agree; and healthy, childless working age men should 
have access to a job, on this we agree.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to read the bill. Broad-
based categorical eligibility gives States the flexibility to offer 
people who are struggling--more people, the SNAP benefit. There are 
many States, including mine, that basically offer SNAP to people who 
are at 200 percent of the poverty level. That is about $24,000. This 
bill changes the criteria.
  So you could be working and making anywhere from $24,000 to like 
$15,900, and, right now, you are working and that is what you make and 
you are eligible for SNAP. This bill says you no longer can get that 
benefit. These are people who work, and this bill takes this nutrition 
benefit away from them.
  I don't know how anybody could think that that is a good thing to do. 
I don't know how that reward works. What that does is punish people. 
That punishes individuals who are doing everything they possibly can to 
try to make ends meet.
  And a lot of people, by the way, who qualify for SNAP who aren't 
working, qualify maybe for a month or two because they are out of work 
for only a month or two. This idea that SNAP creates this culture 
dependency is just a myth. The majority of people on SNAP work--who are 
able-bodied work. I want to make that point clear.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. 
Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and the underlying bill. I originally had some things written down on 
paper, but based on the last comments, I just want to echo the 
sentiments of my colleague and also share that I served as Secretary of 
Labor in the State of Delaware. I served as head of State personnel.
  Jobs are important to us. I had the opportunity to work on WIA, WIOA, 
all of those great pieces of legislation for workforce development. And 
I want to talk about some myths.
  There is a myth that the majority of people on SNAP aren't working or 
won't work in a year. That is a myth. Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are 
children, seniors, and people with disabilities. People don't realize 
that. And there are 6 million unfilled jobs. So, for me, the problem 
with this bill, the biggest problem is that it was a missed 
opportunity.
  If we are truly serious about employing people who are returning from 
prison, people who maybe have a disability--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 16, 2018, on page H4000, the following appeared: If we are 
truly serious about employing people who are returning from 
prison, people who maybe have a disability--The SPEAKER pro 
tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: If we are truly 
serious about employing people who are returning from prison, 
people who maybe have a disability-- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
time of the gentlewoman has expired.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Delaware.
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, if we are truly serious, then we 
will come to the table. But when the table is set in stone, then we 
don't get an opportunity to really work on those things that will 
support the American people.
  The other piece that was disappointing to me is, I came to this as a 
person who wanted to be on this committee because of its bipartisan 
nature and that the American people are waiting and watching to see us 
come together for them. This is a loss of confidence, and it is also a 
missed opportunity.
  I am excited and hopeful that we will come together because the 
people are watching.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that I wrote to 
Secretary Perdue, because there were a lot of questions and assumptions 
that were never answered even in our markup.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2018.
     Hon. Sonny Perdue,
     Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perdue: I am writing to request that the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) respond to my inquiries 
     regarding H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, 
     which is also known as the Farm Bill. As a member of the 
     House Committee on Agriculture, I am one of 46 Members 
     sitting on the committee of jurisdiction for this 
     legislation. Given the breadth of the proposed changes in the 
     Farm Bill, I want to take this opportunity to reach out to 
     the agency that will be responsible for implementing the 
     provisions in the bill.
       During the markup of the Farm Bill on April 18, 2018, my 
     colleagues on both sides of the aisle were only able to 
     direct questions to Chairman Conaway. However, I believe it 
     is essential that we hear from the experts involved in 
     running these programs to ensure we are advocating for 
     policies that are evidence-based. As a result, I respectfully 
     ask that you address the following questions and provide a 
     timely response.


                           Workforce Programs

       My understanding is that we would need anywhere between 
     three to five million more slots in workforce training 
     programs across the country if all eligible SNAP participants 
     would like to enroll in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) 
     programs. The bill would provide a new federal E&T grant of 
     $1 billion per year to finance the newly mandated work 
     program, which comes out to less than $30 per person per 
     month. Upon what evidence and or best practices has this 
     number been arrived at? Does the USDA believe this is 
     sufficient? If not, what does the USDA think is sufficient to 
     implement a meaningful workforce development program and move 
     people into work?
       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis says it 
     would take a decade to set up a program for everyone to get a 
     work slot. If state E&T costs are greater than their annual 
     federal grant, will states bear the additional costs 
     associated with operating the work programs? What breakdown 
     does USDA expect in administration expenses between job 
     training, IT, administrative costs, and other programs? What 
     are the ramifications for states of not fully implementing 
     their work programs?
       What additional capacity would USDA require to oversee this 
     new work program? Would states experience increased 
     administrative costs under this proposal?
       When specifically will we hear the results from the 2014 
     Farm Bill SNAP E&T Pilot Projects? Under current law, what 
     are your expectations for sharing these findings and building 
     them into USDA oversight of state E&T? If H.R. 2 were to be 
     enacted as proposed, when will you be able to incorporate the 
     findings from the pilot projects into the SNAP program, based 
     on how this bill is written?
       I appreciate your timely consideration and the work you do 
     for farmers, families, and communities across the country.
           Sincerely,

                                         Lisa Blunt Rochester,

                                                 Committee Member,
                                   House Committee on Agriculture.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with what my friend had to say. She 
may be a freshman, but she has got a lot of experience working in 
departments of labor putting people to work, and I think that is a goal 
that we all share.
  And, again, it is a missed opportunity. Undeniably, that is true, and 
there is lots of blame to go around about why it is a missed 
opportunity. Again, my friend from Massachusetts and I, we are going to 
go back up to the Rules Committee this afternoon. We are going to make 
some more amendments in order. We are going to work harder to try to 
perfect this bill.
  But walking away from the table has consequences. Setting lines in 
stone has consequences. We are not going to get the best work product 
in this Chamber when anybody walks away from the table. I am just going 
to stipulate that is true. We never ever will.
  But while my friend identified that the program benefits the elderly, 
the disabled, and children, and she is right, and it does, and I 
support that, she didn't mention those able-bodied, healthy, childless 
men who also benefit from the program. And we do those men a 
disservice, not a service, when we make that benefit available in the 
absence of job searching.
  Categorical eligibility--we talk about it today like it is a word 
that we are hearing for the very first time. As my colleagues who were 
here remember, we have already been to the table

[[Page H4001]]

on categorical eligibility. As my friend from Massachusetts referenced, 
States that have nothing to lose by giving away Federal money were 
gaming the system by giving away a dollar in State benefits so that 
folks could qualify for hundreds of dollars in Federal benefits.
  Well, we came together in a bipartisan way and said: Hey, that is not 
right. That is not right. Folks should have skin in the game. We should 
be working at this together. It shouldn't be a giveaway program. It 
should be a helping program. We should be making a difference in 
people's lives.
  We did that in a collaborative way. We can come back and tell the 
story differently today, but we remember coming together and doing 
that, and we can come together and do that again, Mr. Speaker. This 
isn't going to be our last opportunity. We are going to have another 
opportunity.
  Nothing goes to the President's desk unless we get 10 Democrats in 
the United States Senate to get on board and do it. Collaboration is 
not the exception. It is the rule to get things to the President's desk 
and to pass new laws of the land.
  I wish we could talk more about what those successes are, how we 
found those successes in the past, and how we remain committed to 
finding those successes again in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, who are very strongly 
opposed to this farm bill.

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            With Disabilities,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 2018.
     Re H.R. 2, Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (Farm Bill).

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi, The undersigned 
     members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 
     (CCD) urge you to continue the longstanding bipartisan 
     commitment to protect and strengthen the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by rejecting proposals to 
     restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, cap or reduce funding, 
     or make harmful structural changes to SNAP in the Farm Bill.
       CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations 
     working together to advocate for federal public policy that 
     ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society.
       In the United States, all too often food insecurity and 
     disability go together. Families that include people with 
     disabilities are two to three times more likely to experience 
     food insecurity than families that have no members with 
     disabilities. Similarly, people experiencing food insecurity 
     have increased likelihood of chronic illness and disability.
       SNAP is vitally important for people with disabilities and 
     their families. By increasing access to adequate, nutritious 
     food SNAP plays a key role in reducing hunger and helping 
     people with disabilities to maximize their health and 
     participate in their communities.
       Using an inclusive definition of ``disability,'' in 2015 an 
     estimated 11 million people with disabilities of all ages 
     received SNAP, representing roughly one in four SNAP 
     participants.
       Roughly 4.4 million households with non-elderly adults with 
     disabilities received SNAP in 2016.
       Non-elderly adults with disabilities who receive SNAP have 
     very low incomes, averaging only about $12,000 per year in 
     2016.
       SNAP benefits are extremely modest, averaging $187 per 
     month for non-elderly people with disabilities in 2016--or 
     just $6 per day.
       Existing SNAP time limits are harsh, unfair, and harm many 
     people with disabilities and their families by cutting off 
     essential food assistance. Federal law currently limits SNAP 
     eligibility for adults between the ages of 18 to 49 without 
     dependents to just three months out of every three years--
     unless they can engage in work or job training activities at 
     least half time, or qualify for an exemption. These 
     provisions cut off food assistance at a time when people need 
     it most and do not result in increased employment and 
     earnings. At least 500,000 low-income individuals nationwide 
     lost SNAP in 2016 due to this time limit.
       Many people with disabilities are already hurt by SNAP time 
     limits, despite existing exemptions for people who receive 
     governmental or private benefits on the basis of a disability 
     or are able to document that they are ``physically or 
     mentally unfit for employment.''
       For example, in a study of SNAP participants subject to 
     time limits referred to participate in work activities in 
     Franklin County, Ohio, one-third reported a ``physical or 
     mental limitation''.
       Cutting off food assistance from SNAP would only make it 
     harder for people to work and increase their economic self-
     sufficiency. We strongly oppose any action that would cut off 
     or reduce SNAP benefits, narrow eligibility, or force more 
     people to navigate harsh and unnecessary program rules, 
     including people with disabilities and their families.
       In particular, we are concerned that the Farm Bill advanced 
     by the House Committee on Agriculture on April 18, 2018 
     includes a number of provisions that would harm people with 
     disabilities and their families. Small increases in the 
     proposed bill are insufficient to make up for significant 
     benefit reductions.
       New work requirements with highly punitive rules would cut 
     off SNAP benefits for many people--including in families with 
     children, adults, and seniors with disabilities. It may seem 
     simple to assert that ``people with disabilities will be 
     exempt,'' but converting such a statement into an effective 
     policy process is complicated, expensive, and fundamentally 
     flawed. Many people with disabilities receive SNAP, but do 
     not meet SNAP's statutory definitions of ``disability'' or 
     have not been so identified. Under SNAP, states have no 
     obligation to help people prove they are exempt, even if they 
     have difficulty obtaining the necessary records or 
     verification from a doctor. In addition, states are under no 
     obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have 
     access to the full array of services they might need to 
     work--such as accessible transportation, supported 
     employment, and personal care aide services. People with 
     disabilities often want to work, but need additional supports 
     and services to obtain and keep jobs, in addition to facing 
     discrimination and misconceptions about their ability to 
     work.
       Underfunded work programs would be woefully inadequate to 
     meet training needs. Proposed new investments in SNAP 
     employment and training programs--funded in large part by 
     benefit cuts--amount to only about $30 per person per month. 
     This amount would be grossly insufficient to provide adequate 
     employment services for people subject to proposed new work 
     requirements, including jobseekers with disabilities.
       New reporting requirements would create major hurdles to 
     benefits. Proposed new reporting requirements related to 
     eligibility, employment and training, and time limits would 
     be extremely difficult for many people with disabilities to 
     navigate and comply with. For example, ending a decades-old 
     simplification measure and instead requiring people to share 
     utility bills with the SNAP office--or else, see their 
     benefits reduced--is harsh, unnecessary, and burdensome both 
     for SNAP participants and states.
       If Congress wishes to explore meaningful opportunities for 
     SNAP participants to increase self-sufficiency through 
     employment, we recommend awaiting the results of the 
     Employment & Training pilot projects authorized under the 
     2014 Farm Bill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     awarded pilot grants in 2015, all 10 state programs are 
     operational, and evaluation activities will operate through 
     2021. Already, a number of pilot states have cited multiple 
     barriers faced by participants, including ``health issues.'' 
     It will be important for USDA and the evaluators to carefully 
     explore the experiences and outcomes of people with 
     disabilities and their families in these pilot programs. 
     Congress should await the final pilot evaluations before 
     considering any changes in these areas.
       We call on you to reject proposals that would weaken SNAP's 
     effectiveness as our nation's foremost anti-hunger program by 
     limiting access, reducing benefits, or creating 
     administrative hurdles. We urge all Members to vote no on the 
     Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 as approved by the 
     Agriculture Committee on April 18, and instead to work on a 
     bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect SNAP as part of 
     the Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
       CCD members:
       ACCSES, Allies for Independence, American Association of 
     People with Disabilities, American Association on Health and 
     Disability, American Diabetes Association, American 
     Foundation for the Blind, American Network of Community 
     Options and Resources (ANCOR), American Psychological 
     Association, Association of University Centers on 
     Disabilities (AUCD), Autism Society, Autistic Self Advocacy 
     Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Brain Injury 
     Association of America, Center for Public Representation, 
     Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Community Legal Services 
     of Philadelphia, Council of Administrators of Special 
     Education, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, 
     Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional 
     Children (DEC), Easterseals.
       Epilepsy Foundation, Institute for Educational Leadership, 
     The Jewish Federations of North America, Justice in Aging, 
     Lutheran Services in America Disability Network, National 
     Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils 
     on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of State 
     Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Association 
     of State

[[Page H4002]]

     Head Injury Administrators, National Committee to Preserve 
     Social Security and Medicare, National Disability Institute, 
     National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome 
     Congress, National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives (NOSSCR), School Social Work Association of 
     America, SourceAmerica, TASH, The Arc of the United States, 
     United Spinal Association.
       Joined by:
       Lakeshore Foundation.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against this 
terrible farm bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we were working together, Democrats and Republicans, to 
work on a farm bill. Unfortunately, the Republicans are putting all of 
our constituents in danger by making this bill purely a political 
agenda.
  At the last minute, after working together and reaching consensus, 
the Republicans decided to include major devastating cuts to SNAP, or 
food stamps, instead of helping rural and urban Americans.
  This bill cuts SNAP by $23 billion, which will kick 1 million 
households off the program. The bill will also kick 265,000 kids out of 
free school meals and reduce benefits for millions of families.
  In Michigan 1.3 million people rely on SNAP and it keeps 141,000 
children out of poverty. This bill includes so many other programs in 
my district.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, my district supports urban farmers and 
food banks so our farmers and people can thrive. We should not put all 
of this in danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on Republicans today to stop, to remove this 
terrible proposal for SNAP with this poisonous bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from 
No Kid Hungry, Share Our Strength, an initiative strongly opposed to 
this bill.

                   [From No Kid Hungry, May 15, 2018]

                   Congress Must Vote No on Farm Bill

       Washington, DC.--This week the House of Representatives 
     will vote on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 
     2), also known as the Farm Bill. The following is a statement 
     from Share Our Strength's Senior Vice President Lisa Davis 
     about the harmful impact the bill would have on struggling 
     families in America. Share Our Strength officially opposes 
     the bill.
       ``This week, the House of Representatives will vote on the 
     Farm Bill. On balance, this bill will ultimately increase 
     poverty and hunger in the United States and Share Our 
     Strength cannot support it.
       Thirteen million children today are growing up in families 
     that worry about hunger. Even more live in families on the 
     brink, just one lost job, one medical emergency, one broken 
     water heater away from hunger. Consider:
       A study by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of 
     all Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency 
     expense.
       Another study from the National Center for Children in 
     Poverty shows that nearly half of all children in the United 
     States live ``dangerously close'' to the poverty line. 6 in 
     10 Americans will spend at least one year of their lives in 
     poverty.
       And in another survey recently conducted on behalf of No 
     Kid Hungry, two-thirds of low-income parents said they would 
     not be able to afford enough food for their families if they 
     were hit with a single, unplanned expense of $1,500.
       These are families trying to do their best to survive. 
     These are the families we all know. It's the single working 
     mom in California, worried about whether to pay the 
     electricity bill or pay for groceries this month. It's the 
     grandmother trying to raise her grandkids in Appalachia. And 
     it's the military veteran trying to find enough work hours to 
     support his son in Central Pennsylvania.
       And while this legislation includes some needed 
     improvements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     (SNAP), such as increasing asset limits and indexing them to 
     inflation, these changes are significantly outweighed by 
     harmful ones, such as eliminating Broad Based Categorical 
     Eligibility (BBCE) and increasing administrative burdens on 
     states and imposing penalties on adults who are unable to 
     comply with the expanded work requirements in a given month.
       We believe a good job is the best pathway out of poverty, 
     but there is little reason to think the policies in this Farm 
     Bill will increase employment. It imposes harsh penalties on 
     beneficiaries who drop below the required number of hours in 
     a month, locking them out of SNAP for a full year the first 
     time and 3 years if it happens again. imagine a single mom 
     barely getting 20 hours of work a week whose child gets strep 
     throat or the flu. Or the rural dad whose car breaks down. Or 
     the 55-year-old house cleaner whose back goes out.
       This is all counterintuitive. Adding hurdles and punitive 
     restrictions won't help people find jobs or get back on their 
     feet. But it will increase hunger and hardship for many 
     families.
       In addition, the Congressional Budget Office also reports 
     that this legislation will lead to more than 265,000 kids 
     losing free school meals during the school year, a double 
     whammy for poor, working families. Research demonstrates the 
     deep connections between hunger and health, particularly for 
     children. When kids don't get the fuel they need to nourish 
     their developing minds and bodies, they are more likely to 
     get sick and do poorly in school, and they are much less 
     likely to access a future free from poverty.
       We urge members of the House of Representatives to take a 
     stand for children and families and oppose this 
     legislation.''


                          ABOUT NO KID HUNGRY

       No child should go hungry in America, but 1 in 5 kids will 
     face hunger this year. Using proven, practical solutions, No 
     Kid Hungry is ending childhood hunger today by ensuring that 
     kids start the day with a nutritious breakfast, are able to 
     get the nutrition they need during the summertime, and 
     families learn the skills they need to shop and cook on a 
     budget. When we all work together, we can make sure kids get 
     the healthy food they need. No Kid Hungry is a campaign of 
     national anti-hunger organization Share Our Strength.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from a 
coalition of over 60 child advocacy organizations opposed to the bill.

                                                      May 9, 2018.
       Dear Representative: As child advocates in the areas of 
     hunger and nutrition, poverty, health, welfare, housing, and 
     education, we are writing to express our opposition to the 
     Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), which will 
     harm the millions of children who rely on federal nutrition 
     programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP) for access to consistent, healthy food. In the 
     interests of our nation's babies, children and youth we 
     strongly urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2.
       SNAP is a proven anti-hunger and anti-poverty program for 
     children, which also lowers the odds of household and child 
     food insecurity, and of children's anemia, poor health, 
     hospitalization for failure to thrive, and developmental 
     delays. Research has also found that receiving SNAP in early 
     childhood improved high school graduation rates, adult 
     earnings, and adult health. Today, nearly 20 million children 
     participate in SNAP, representing 44 percent of the program's 
     recipients and receiving nearly half of every SNAP dollar. In 
     addition, school breakfast and lunch programs provide many of 
     these same children a nutritious morning and lunchtime meal 
     each day. Because children experience both poverty and food 
     insecurity at higher rates than the general population, 
     federal nutrition programs such as SNAP and school meals are 
     critical supports that help them develop, learn, and succeed. 
     To that end, we are very concerned about the impact H.R. 2 
     would have on our nation's children. In fact, several 
     provisions in the Nutrition Title of H.R. 2 directly threaten 
     access to vital nutrition programs for the countless children 
     and youth that we represent:
       Drastic Program Eligibility Changes: H.R. 2 Makes several 
     harmful changes to state options that simplify SNAP 
     eligibility requirements to improve access to SNAP for poor 
     and low-income families with children. These changes would:
       Expose Low-Income Children to a SNAP ``Benefit Cliff'': 
     H.R. 2 eliminates Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), 
     which gives states additional flexibility and efficiency in 
     granting SNAP eligibility. This change will reinstate a 
     benefit cliff in a majority of states, jeopardizing food 
     assistance for 400,000 households who are scraping by on 
     earnings just above 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.
       Undermine the Ability of Poor and Low-Income Families with 
     Children to Build Savings: Similarly, the virtual elimination 
     by
     H.R. 2 of Categorical Eligibility will mean many states will 
     have to introduce a counterproductive and costly process of 
     asset testing for SNAP eligibility. As a result, H.R. 2 would 
     cause many families to lose eligibility solely because of red 
     tape, and force other families choose between meeting their 
     basic need for food and building up the savings and resources 
     that would help them achieve economic mobility.
       Threaten Poor and Low-Income Children's Access to School 
     Meals: Under current law, children who receive SNAP are 
     directly certified for free school meal programs. These meals 
     help combat childhood hunger, while playing an important role 
     in improving academic achievement and test scores and 
     reducing absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline referrals. By 
     forcing families off of SNAP due to changes in categorical 
     eligibility, H.R. 2 would break this vital link between SNAP 
     receipt and school meals for low-income and poor children. As 
     a result, some 265,000 children stand to lose access to free 
     school meals.

[[Page H4003]]

       Undermine SNAP benefits for Poor and Low-Income Children 
     Whose Families Rely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP is a program that helps low-income 
     households afford their monthly utility bills. Under current 
     law, some states allow households to use LIHEAP benefits 
     greater than $20/month as proof of significant energy 
     expenses, creating a streamlined method for families to 
     access a modest increase in their SNAP benefit. However, H.R. 
     2 removes this option for households that do not have an 
     elderly member, effectively requiring poor and low-income 
     families with children to provide substantial documentation 
     of energy bills on a frequent basis for caseworkers to 
     determine their utility allowance, which could discourage 
     them from seeking the larger benefit or decrease its size.
       Harsh Work Requirements: Under current law, existing SNAP 
     work requirements aimed at childless adults already have 
     unintended and harmful consequences for children (for 
     instance, those who rely on pooled resources from extended 
     family and Non-Custodial Parents) and youth (such as those 
     aging out of foster care.) Yet in spite of limited supporting 
     evidence, H.R. 2 intensifies and expands work requirements, 
     reduces state flexibilities for exemptions, and requires 
     states to implement costly training and employment programs 
     that will take funds from food benefits to support a 
     bureaucracy that will not provide quality services to people. 
     The consequences of these changes could be devastating for 
     countless children and youth, including:
       The 13.4 million school-aged children on SNAP: H.R. 2 takes 
     the unprecedented step of expanding work requirements to 
     adults with school-aged children. This provision risks the 
     wellbeing of children whose parents or guardians are: 1) 
     acting as a caretaker for a loved one such as a child with a 
     disability; 2) have physical or mental health disabilities 
     that don't qualify as a disability under the legal 
     definition; 3) face substantial barriers to work, including 
     substance abuse issues or domestic violence; 4) working but 
     struggling to meet the 20 hour per week threshold or the 
     burdensome documentation requirements; and 5) have difficulty 
     obtaining childcare or transportation. For these parents or 
     guardians, losing SNAP translates to a benefit cut for their 
     whole household, meaning there will be less food on the table 
     for their children. Some parents and guardians may also 
     erroneously believe that their inability to meet these new 
     work requirements makes their children ineligible for SNAP as 
     well, and as a result opt out of applying for or renewing 
     benefits for the entire family.
       In addition, children in very vulnerable families may be 
     impacted by the new requirements, such as:
       Children in the Care of Grandparents: Today, more than 2.5 
     million children are being raised by their grandparents or 
     other relatives, in part because families are dealing with 
     parental alcohol and substance abuse issues, which are 
     growing rapidly due to the opioid epidemic. And already, 
     these families face barriers to accessing the full array of 
     benefits and services they need. H.R. 2 would further 
     threaten the ability of grandparents and other older 
     relatives to care for children because it expands work 
     requirements for adults up to age 60 who are caring for 
     children over six years of age.
       Children in Families with a History of Family Violence: 
     H.R. 2 requires parents fleeing family violence with their 
     children to meet the new work requirements unless they 
     receive a state exemption. In addition, H.R. 2 requires 
     parents to cooperate with state Child Support Enforcement 
     (CSE) efforts in order receive SNAP benefits--a drastic 
     change from current law, under which 45 states, DC, and the 
     Virgin Islands have declined to link the two. Yet H.R. 2 
     effectively eliminates existing state flexibility around CSE 
     cooperation, meaning parents who would like to apply for SNAP 
     but are afraid of CSE requirements which would link them to 
     their abusers are forced to choose between safety and feeding 
     their children.
       Children in Military and Veteran Families: Many veteran and 
     military families need help feeding themselves and their 
     children. Today, households that include a veteran with a 
     disability are nearly twice as likely to lack access to 
     adequate food as households that do not include someone with 
     a disability, and sadly, food insecurity rates are nearly 
     double among post-9/11 veterans. Furthermore, currently-
     serving military families often experience food insecurity 
     because of financial emergencies, low pay, and crisis levels 
     of chronic unemployment or underemployment of military 
     spouses in a society where most families need dual incomes to 
     live. By subjecting these parents, including those suffering 
     from PTSD, to the new work requirements, H.R. 2 penalizes 
     families in need who have already sacrificed so much for our 
     nation.
       Youth aging out of foster care and unaccompanied, homeless 
     youth: Youth aging out of foster care often face various 
     challenges, including homelessness, difficulty affording 
     education, and finding employment. Unaccompanied homeless 
     youth and young adults (who lack safe stable housing and who 
     are not in the care of a parent or guardian) experience 
     similar difficulties, especially when they reach age 18. 
     Existing SNAP work requirements already create a substantial 
     barrier for these young people from accessing food 
     assistance, because they technically meet the definition of a 
     childless adult. Under the harsh requirements in H.R. 2, 
     these vulnerable young adults will face even larger obstacles 
     to food assistance.
       The Farm Bill represents an important opportunity for 
     policy solutions that will strengthen and improve nutrition 
     programs for our nation's children. Instead, H.R. 2 is slated 
     to reduce spending on SNAP benefits by more than $20 billion 
     over 10 years and will disproportionately hurt children 
     through its harmful provisions. We urge you to protect our 
     nation's children and vote NO on H.R. 2.
       Thank you for your time and attention.
       Signed,
       1,000 Days, African American Health Alliance, Afterschool 
     Alliance, American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Council of 
     Human Service Providers, Association of Farmworker 
     Opportunity Programs, Campaign for Youth Justice, Center for 
     Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, 
     Child Labor Coalition, Child Welfare League of America, 
     Children's Defense Fund, Children's Leadership Council, 
     Children's Advocacy Institute, Coalition on Human Needs, 
     Covenant House International, Division for Early Childhood of 
     the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC), Every Child 
     Matters, Families USA, Family Focused Treatment Association.
       Family Focused Treatment Association, First Five Years 
     Fund, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & 
     Action Center, Forum for Youth Investment, Generations 
     United, Healthy Teen Network, Jumpstart, Lutheran Services in 
     America, Methodist Children's Home Society, MomsRising, 
     National Alliance of Children's Trust & Prevention Funds, 
     National Association for Family Child Care, National 
     Association for the Education of Young Children, National 
     Association of Counsel for Children, National Center on 
     Adoption and Permanency, National Consumers League, National 
     Council of Jewish Women, National Diaper Bank Network, 
     National Health Law Program.
       National Human Services Assembly, National Indian Child 
     Welfare Association, National Migrant Seasonal Head Start 
     Association, National Network for Youth, National PTA, 
     National Urban League, National WIC Association, National 
     Women's Law Center, Oral Health America, Parents as Teachers, 
     Partnership for America's Children, PolicyLink, Prosperity 
     Now, Public Advocacy for Kids, Racial and Ethnic Health 
     Disparities Coalition.
       RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, 
     SchoolHouse Connection, Share Our Strength, Social Advocates 
     for Youth San Diego, SparkAction, StandUp For Kids, The 
     Criminalization of Poverty Project at the Institute for 
     Policy Studies, The National Association for Bilingual 
     Education, The W. Haywood Burns Institute, UnidosUS, Western 
     Regional Advocacy Project, Youth Villages, YWCA USA.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
National Education Association strongly opposed to this bill.

                               National Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members 
     of the National Education Association and the 50 million 
     students they serve, we strongly urge you to VOTE NO on the 
     Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2) and oppose any 
     amendments that further weaken the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program. This bill makes unnecessary changes to 
     eligibility requirements that could reduce the number of 
     students certified for free school meals. The bill also 
     imposes additional work requirements for adults that will 
     make it harder for some people to get or keep critical 
     nutrition benefits. Votes associated with this issue may be 
     included in NEA's Report Card for the 115th Congress.
       The Farm Bill, as this reauthorization is commonly known, 
     provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP), which is our nation's largest anti-hunger 
     program. By providing monthly benefits to eligible low-income 
     people to purchase food, SNAP plays a critical role in 
     reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, and improving 
     family security, child and adult health, and employment. SNAP 
     reaches key vulnerable populations--78 percent of SNAP 
     households include a child, an elderly person, or a person 
     with disabilities; 84 percent of all SNAP benefits go to such 
     households. SNAP lifted 3.6 million Americans out of poverty 
     in 2016, according to the Census Bureau's Supplemental 
     Poverty Measure. By providing much needed economic support, 
     SNAP allows families to have sufficient nutrition during 
     times of unemployment, fluctuating incomes, and low-wage 
     work.
       Children living in households that receive SNAP benefits 
     are eligible to receive free school meals. The healthy meals 
     that low-income children receive at school fight hunger, 
     improve academic performance, and help reduce absenteeism, 
     tardiness, and discipline referrals. According to the Food 
     Research and Action Center, linking children in SNAP 
     households to school meals is so important that Congress 
     required all school districts participating in the National 
     School Lunch Program to directly certify their students for 
     free school meals.
       H.R. 2 undermines the important link between SNAP and free 
     school meals in the 28 states that have chosen a broad based 
     categorical eligibility option under current

[[Page H4004]]

     rules that expands SNAP eligibility to assist working 
     families that still struggle to make ends meet. According to 
     the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this could 
     impact as many as 265,000 students nationwide. While students 
     could apply for school meals via a burdensome paper process, 
     there is no guarantee that they will still be eligible for 
     the program or recertified in a timely manner. This would 
     cost their families even more when they have just lost SNAP 
     benefits. Further, this puts an enormous administrative 
     burden on schools to revert to a costly paper-based system,
       Direct Certification for SNAP also provides the foundation 
     for the Community Eligibility Provision, a hugely successful 
     option that allows over 20,000 high-poverty schools to offer 
     free breakfast and lunch to their students. The provision 
     eliminates the need for schools to collect and process school 
     meal applications, which allows schools to focus on providing 
     healthy and appealing meals instead of processing paperwork. 
     Schools are eligible to implement community eligibility if at 
     least 40 percent of their students are certified to receive 
     free school meals without submitting an application.
       Reducing the number of students who are directly certified 
     by changing the rules for broad-based categorical eligibility 
     means that fewer schools will be eligible to implement 
     community eligibility, and many schools that are eligible 
     will find that it is no longer financially viable, because 
     fewer of their meals would be reimbursed at the free rate. 
     This would increase unnecessary paperwork for schools and 
     inhibit student success.
       The proposed changes in H.R. 2 to broad-based categorical 
     eligibility will result in working families losing much 
     needed food benefits. It also means that their children could 
     lose free school meals, amplifying the negative impact of the 
     cut. It will mean more children go hungry at home as well as 
     at school.
       The bill further imposes aggressive new work requirements, 
     which are unnecessary, unworkable and likely to do more harm 
     than good. It would require SNAP participants ages 18 through 
     59 who are not disabled or raising a child under 6 to prove--
     every month--that they're working at least 20 hours a week, 
     participating at least 20 hours a week in a work program, or 
     a combination of the two. These new requirements would force 
     states to develop large new bureaucracies that would need to 
     track millions of SNAP recipients, but likely would do little 
     to boost employment, particularly given that the new funding 
     provided in the bill for job training and work slots would 
     amount to just $30 per month for those recipients who need a 
     work slot to retain SNAP benefits, according to the CBPP. 
     Further, the requirements would leave low-income people with 
     barriers to employment--such as limited job skills or family 
     members with illness--with neither earnings nor food 
     assistance.
       We also have particular concern about amendments filed for 
     Rules Committee consideration that would undermine the 
     nutrition guidelines for school meals programs. These 
     guidelines are currently being implemented in schools, and 
     have already led to increased fruit and vegetable consumption 
     by students. Good nutrition is particularly important for 
     students from low-income families, who may eat as many as 
     half of their calories every day at school. Additionally, 
     USDA has only recently published an interim rule for school 
     meals that provides additional flexibility on the guidelines 
     for schools. These amendments would only add uncertainty to 
     this process and threaten the nutritional quality of the 
     meals offered to students.
       We urge you to oppose any amendments that could threaten 
     mandatory safety net programs beyond SNAP, such as Medicaid, 
     Medicare, Social Security, and Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families.
       The bill further includes $65 million in loans and grants 
     administered by the Department of Agriculture to support 
     Association Health Plans (AHP) offered through organizations 
     that will eliminate coverage of essential health benefits 
     (categories of care). These plans may appear to be a less 
     expensive option than current small group market plans that 
     include comprehensive coverage and consumer protections. 
     However, in light of recently proposed rules, AHPs will soon 
     not be required to cover services such as prescription drugs, 
     mental health and maternity care leading to insufficient and 
     inadequate care for children and adults.
       We strongly urge you to Vote No on the Farm Bill, any 
     amendments aimed at weakening the healthy guidelines for 
     school meals, and any amendments that make it even more 
     difficult for SNAP participants to receive critical nutrition 
     benefits.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Marc Egan,

                                 Director of Government Relations,
                                   National Education Association.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I rise in 
opposition to the rule. SNAP is a lifeline for 40 million low-income 
Americans and millions of working families. It is the most effective 
antihunger program in the country.
  It is a proven pathway out of poverty for America's most vulnerable 
families, and yet, instead of protecting successful programs like SNAP, 
this cruel bill would take over $23 billion in benefits away from 
children, seniors, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and working 
families struggling to make ends meet.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that the 
requirements in this farm bill would help people find work. But if they 
are really interested in promoting jobs that allow people to care for 
themselves and their families, I would invite them to consider 
legislation to raise the minimum wage, ensure fair work scheduling, 
provide paid family and medical leave and paid sick days, and address 
basic living standards.
  Instead, we are considering a callous farm bill that cuts benefits 
for those who need it most in order to pay for massive handouts to 
corporations in the top 1 percent. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve on the Agriculture Committee. 
I am the ranking member in the Nutrition Subcommittee, and I sat 
through 23 hearings. I heard Republican witnesses and Democratic 
witnesses, and all of them said the same thing: the SNAP program is 
important; don't mess around with it.
  I didn't hear anybody--anybody hint at embracing what is in this farm 
bill under the nutrition title, a title, by the way, which I, as the 
ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, didn't even see until it 
was made public.
  My friend from Georgia talks about bipartisanship. I mean, give me a 
break. I mean, you can say it all you want, but the bottom line is that 
it doesn't exist in the Agriculture Committee. The process was 
offensive, and even more offensive is what the end product is going to 
do to vulnerable people in this country.
  You know, this is not a debate about able-bodied adults who aren't 
working. You know, that is a very complicated population. I actually 
asked for a hearing on that population, and I was denied that right. 
You ought to know who this population is. It is a complicated 
population.
  Many of these able-bodied adults without dependents who are not 
working or who are not in the job training programs are our veterans 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan having difficulty reintegrating in 
the community; they are young people graduating out of foster care; 
they are people with undiagnosed mental illnesses. If we did a hearing, 
you would know who this population is. This is more than a press 
release.
  I am sick and tired of people being stereotyped all the time. And by 
the way, you punish people who are working. You know, by eliminating 
broad-based categorical eligibility, there are people right now who are 
working, who make, you know, between $50,800 a year and maybe $24,000 a 
year, they work, and they get this benefit to put food on the table.

                              {time}  1415

  And yet you are making changes that will deny them that benefit. They 
are working. You say you want to reward work. Well, what are you 
thinking when you take this nutrition benefit away from these people, 
who are doing everything right. When you take this SNAP benefit away 
from adults, you are taking it away from their children as well. And 
you heard over and over and over again that when people lose their SNAP 
benefit, their kids lose access to a free breakfast and lunch at 
school. This is awful.
  Send this bill back to committee. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I told you when we started this debate, Mr. Speaker, you were going 
to hear some passion from my friend from Massachusetts because he is, 
in fact, passionate. He is a public servant, and he serves his 
constituency well.
  But I want to read to you from Politico, one of our Washington, D.C., 
newspapers, that follows what goes on here

[[Page H4005]]

in politics. I don't sit on the Agriculture Committee, as my friend 
from Massachusetts does, but Politico reported this, as talks around 
the farm bill broke down in March:

       Bipartisan negotiations over the farm bill stopped--

  There were bipartisan negotiations. Those negotiations stopped, Mr. 
Speaker.

       Thursday afternoon, after House Agriculture Committee 
     ranking member Collin Peterson--

  The ranking Democrat.

     --faced pressure from fellow Democrats, who complained that 
     discussions about changes to the food stamp program were 
     being kept secret.

  My friend from Massachusetts mentioned that. I have that same 
frustration on committees that I serve, Mr. Speaker. Very often, the 
chairman of the committee, who is a Republican, and the ranking member, 
who is a Democrat, and their subcommittee chairmen very often they get 
together and have negotiations before rank-and-file Members get 
involved. It happens, and I am frustrated about it, and my friend from 
Massachusetts is frustrated about it.

       The development--

  Politico goes on to say.

     --is a considerable blow to the sweeping bill, which was seen 
     by many as one of the only real chances for bipartisanship in 
     this Congress. Congress is supposed to reauthorize the farm 
     bill every 5 years, but political wrangling has threatened 
     its fate. Current law expires September 30.
       Peterson's decision--

  Collin Peterson is the ranking Democrat.

     --to pause talks comes after House Democrats demanded that he 
     stop negotiations until the text of the bill is made to 
     everyone.

  The Democratic Members have made clear that they unanimously oppose 
the farm bill's SNAP language as it has been described to them or 
reported in the press.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, if when you hear things you don't like, or see 
things you don't like, you leave the negotiating table, I promise you 
we are going to get a worse result every single time.
  I go up to this Rules Committee, right up here on the third floor, 
and we debate and talk and debate and talk and debate and talk hour 
upon hour upon hour, late into the evening, often into the next 
morning. I hear things I don't like. I hear people say things I know 
are not true. But I don't pick up my toys and go home. I stay at the 
table, I debate the issues, and I work through the issues. If it was 
easy, someone would have done it before this Congress got here. All 
that is left is hard.
  My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. He is 
absolutely right. He is absolutely right. If we are to reform the 
social safety net, we are going to have to expand benefits, not 
restrict them. He is absolutely right. But if we can't stay at the 
table to have that conversation, we are never going to bring people 
together to get that done.
  You can't blame people who follow their self-interest. If the rule 
says you don't have to work, you don't have to work. If the rule says 
if you work too much, you will lose your benefits, then you don't work 
too much. That is crazy to encourage people to stay home.
  You ought to be encouraging people to seek that next promotion, take 
on those extra hours, work that overtime. That has always been who we 
are and what we have done, and we have not taken on that challenge in 
welfare reform. I believe we can. I believe we can.
  I need my colleagues to support this rule today. I need them to 
support the rule so we can bring up not just the farm bill, so that we 
can bring up the VA MISSION Act, a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will 
go to the President's desk and change the lives of veterans.
  I need my colleagues to support this rule, not just so we can bring 
up the farm bill, not just so we can bring up the VA MISSION Act, but 
so that we can make the harming or threatening the harm of a law 
enforcement officer a Federal crime, to give the men and women who wear 
blue across this country the protections they deserve.
  This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker, that is going to make a 
difference for our constituents back home. These are going to be issues 
that get folks exercise, Mr. Speaker. The most difficult issues we take 
on always do.
  But if we pass this rule and take up this legislation, we will be one 
step closer, not just to succeeding for our veterans, not just to 
succeeding for our law enforcement officers, not just to succeeding on 
behalf of our farmers, but one step closer to taking on what is a 
collaborative challenge of how to return the incentives to work to the 
American people, while keeping the social safety net strong for all of 
the families that depend on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just 
mischaracterized the very partisan process that occurred in the 
Agriculture Committee in which Democrats were totally shut out.
  I want to know: What are the remedies that we have at this point in 
the debate to be able to correct the record so we can correct the 
misrepresentations?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry. That is a matter for debate.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time 
that I have yielded back. I would be happy to yield a portion of it to 
my friend.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that nobody 
walked away from the table; only after we were totally shut out of the 
process.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement--if the gentleman were paying 
attention--the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, actually tried to offer 
suggestions and was totally shut out.
  I am the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee. You mentioned 
the ranking members usually get informed as to what is going on. I 
didn't see it until it was made public.
  This was the most offensive process I have ever witnessed.
  And, by the way, the product in this ag bill--which I don't think the 
gentleman has read, based on some of the things he has said--but this 
final product does not represent any of the hearings we had.
  So this process in the Agriculture Committee, which has been, 
historically, probably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress, 
was basically thrown into chaos as a result of the behavior of the 
majority.
  I just say to the gentleman: You can try to spin this all you want, 
but the bottom line is that this has never happened before. And Collin 
Peterson--I just want to say--is probably the most bipartisan Member of 
this House. If you can't strike a bipartisan deal with Collin Peterson, 
you can't strike a bipartisan deal with anybody.
  But that is not what this was about. This was about advancing an 
agenda, quite frankly, that is going to hurt millions of vulnerable 
people in this country, and I find it offensive.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for granting my 
unanimous consent request to reclaim my time. I do believe that we 
advantage all of our causes, rather than disadvantage them, by 
promoting debate.
  But I want to take issue, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mischaracterize 
anything. I read the media reporting. I will be the first--when you 
want to have the fake news conversation--there is too much fake news in 
this country--I will be happy to join you and have that debate with 
you. But I didn't mischaracterize a thing.
  I agree with what my friend had to say about Collin Peterson from 
Minnesota. He is a fabulous Member, who works as hard as he can on 
behalf of his constituents to get work done. Nothing in the article I 
read said Collin Peterson walked away from the table. Everything in the 
article I read said he

[[Page H4006]]

was pressured by his Democratic colleagues to walk away from the table.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I will not yield again to my friend. I am going to 
close.
  I take umbrage at the fact that we would have an opportunity to use 
each other's time, and you would use it to continue to say I 
mischaracterized, that we would have an opportunity to have a 
discussion, and you would continue to use it to say that folks just 
aren't as well informed as you are about those issues.
  We have opportunities in this Chamber to make things better, and we 
have opportunities to make things worse. And I will say to my friend, 
Mr. Speaker, if we take advantage of our opportunities to make things 
better, I believe that we will. If we take advantage of our 
opportunities to make things worse, I am absolutely certain that we 
will.
  I choose the latter. I choose the latter. A vote in support of this 
rule is a vote for the latter.
  I am sorry, I am choosing the former. I am choosing the former. My 
colleagues out there are saying: Hey, I know Woodall; that is not 
right. He is not choosing to make things worse.
  I choose the former, Mr. Speaker. I choose the former. A vote for 
this rule is a vote for the former.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair for my confusion.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 891 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5805) to designate certain amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the provision by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs of hospital care and medical services in non-
     Department of Veterans Affairs facilities pursuant to 
     contracts as changes in concepts and definitions for certain 
     budgetary purposes, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs 
     and ranking minority members of the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs and the Budget. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5805.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules on S. 35.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 184, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner

[[Page H4007]]


     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Beyer
     Brown (MD)
     Cicilline
     DeGette
     Gabbard
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Labrador
     McNerney
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1449

  Mr. SUOZZI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 185.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 185, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Rush
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Beyer
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Cooper
     DeGette
     Gabbard
     Issa
     Labrador
     McNerney
     Poe (TX)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1457

  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________