[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4050-H4057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

  The Committee resumed its sitting.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I came to 
Congress to solve problems and create economic opportunities for New 
Mexico, which is still struggling with one of the highest unemployment 
and poverty rates in the Nation.
  Now, we had a chance in this farm bill to do just that, and I have 
worked for years on an array of bipartisan initiatives in this bill, 
including creating a first-ever broadband grant program to increase 
internet access in rural communities; expediting the adoption of 
innovative conservation and water management technologies; and finally 
banning the heinous practice of lunch shaming.
  Unfortunately, the bill the majority brought to the floor today not 
only jeopardizes all of that bipartisan work, it also includes 
provisions that will cause so much pain to so many people in my State.
  This bill creates new restrictions on SNAP eligibility and a massive 
unfunded mandate on State bureaucracies which will further destabilize 
an already broken SNAP system in New Mexico.
  I have spent years working to hold my State accountable for their 
mismanagement of SNAP and for illegally denying thousands of 
individuals their benefits. Under this bill, those mistakes will become 
much more common. Millions of Americans will be needlessly kicked off 
SNAP, and more children and families will go hungry.
  Mr. Chairman, it may be politically expedient to bring this partisan 
bill to the floor that destroys SNAP as we know it, but passing a 
partisan bill that will undoubtedly die in the Senate does nothing for 
the Americans who wait for Congress to do their jobs.
  This bill is the perfect reflection of what is wrong with Washington: 
that politics will always take priority over progress. I urge my 
colleagues to recommit to the bipartisan collaborative work that is 
desperately needed by farms, ranchers, and vulnerable Americans in 
every single one of our districts. This is the only way we will pass a 
farm bill and fulfill our commitment to the constituents we have a duty 
to serve.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, America's farm families have had to weather 
a 5-year recession with depressed prices resulting in a 52-percent drop 
in net farm income. Two-thirds of our farming operations today are in 
economic trouble, and chapter 12 bankruptcies have risen by 33 percent 
in just 2 years. So it is no secret that our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers are struggling.
  I hear all this talk during the past month about a free market, how 
everything would be so much better without farm programs. ``We want a 
complete, total free market,'' they say. From an intellectual and 
philosophical standpoint, I would love that. We all would. But here is 
the problem: that isn't the real world.
  There is no free market when you have countries all around the world 
subsidizing their agriculture production to the hilt. For example, 
Communist China agreed to a subsidy limit as part of their accession to 
the WTO in 2001. But what do they do? They exceed that subsidy limit by 
$100 billion on just three crops alone in 1 year. That is no free 
market.
  Farm programs account for 0.24 percent of the total Federal budget, 
and in return, every individual and family in this country is 
guaranteed an abundant, affordable food supply, and the very best 
nutritious food at an exceptionally affordable price. That is, quite 
frankly, a huge return on a relatively small investment, not to mention 
what agriculture means to our rural economies and our trade balance 
with the rest of the world.
  American agriculture is more than just being the best producers in 
the business and feeding the world. It is about food security and 
national security. Once a farm is gone, it isn't coming back. It is not 
like your local hardware store that goes out of business; it is not 
like that space isn't going to be replaced by another business; it 
will. Farms, on the other hand, are replaced by developments taking 
some of our very best farmland out of production.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from North Carolina 
an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, we have lost 44 million acres of farmland 
during the past 30 years.
  Mr. Chairman, passage of this farm bill is absolutely critical to the 
livelihood and success of our farm families and food supply. I 
encourage and hope that every one of us will vote for this bill.
  This farm bill strengthens the farm safety net while making other 
vital improvements to current law that will benefit our farm families, 
rural communities, and animal agriculture sector--such as the 
establishment of a new U.S.-only vaccine bank to prevent Foot-and-Mouth 
disease, authorizing $1.1 billion to provide broadband service to 
harder-to-serve rural areas, and providing the Secretary of Agriculture 
with tools necessary to help combat the ongoing opioid crises which is 
hitting rural America especially hard.
  Additionally, this farm bill makes common sense changes to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to encourage work and provide 
for job training.
  The vast majority of Americans would agree that if you work you 
should be better off than if you don't work. Under this bill, we simply 
ask that those who are of working age and are perfectly capable, work 
20 hours a week. And, if one can't find work we will pay for their job 
training so that everyone can attain the skills necessary to get the 
job they want.
  The unfortunate reality is that we have too many SNAP recipients 
stuck in the program with no pathway to upward mobility. Why? Because 
current SNAP requirements are outdated and riddled with loopholes that 
incentivize the status quo and fail to support those who need it most. 
In fact, more than 2/3 of work-capable adults on SNAP are not currently 
employed.
  Today unemployment numbers are at 3.9 percent. In the year 2000, the 
last time unemployment was this low, there were 17 million people on 
SNAP. Today, we have more than 41 million people on SNAP yet the 
unemployment is exactly the same. Mr. Speaker, if that doesn't 
illustrate the problem, I don't know what does.
  We must do better.
  This farm bill puts this country on the path to do just that. It 
makes much needed reforms to ensure that recipients of these benefits--
those who are perfectly capable of work--have a pathway to upward 
mobility, can get good jobs, and ultimately use their God-given talents 
to achieve a rewarding career.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is the chairman of the House 
Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We need to talk about what is really happening with this bill. Just 
months after giving massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest 
individuals through their tax scam, Republicans are now penalizing the 
most vulnerable among us by cutting one of the most proven and valuable 
programs that ensures that kids, seniors, and working Americans don't 
go hungry.
  If my Republican colleagues looked at the facts, they would see that 
SNAP--or food stamps--actually work. They would see that a worker is 
more likely to keep a job if they can put food

[[Page H4051]]

on the table and at the same time afford to commute to and from work; 
that a child is likely to do better in school if they have a full 
stomach to start the school day with; that calling struggling Americans 
complacent and lazy doesn't help America's poverty crisis, but programs 
like SNAP do help.
  If they could see all that, then we wouldn't be here debating a 
partisan bill that is bad for families, bad for farmers, and bad for 
our country.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem isn't food stamp recipients. The problem 
isn't food stamps. The problem is those who claim they want to help 
American families, and then do everything in their power to hurt them 
by passing this partisan bill. I will not vote for it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Yoho), who is a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Only two times each decade do we in Congress have the privilege to 
effect productive, meaningful change for America's farmers and 
ranchers--those same citizens who help feed and clothe the entire 
world.
  Let us not forget that America's farmers and ranchers make up only 1 
percent of our Nation's population, yet they make sure that dinner 
tables across the country have food on them. In fact, one farm feeds 
165 people in the U.S. and abroad. As such, U.S. farm policy is now a 
target due to its own success.
  Politically driven think tanks and antifarmer groups believe that 
there is no longer a point to have a farm policy in the United States. 
They fail to realize that America's farmers and ranchers do business 
with foreign competitors who do not share the free market values our 
country adopted at its founding, placing them at a disadvantage; 
therefore, we have to properly equip our producers to compete with 
countries that directly subsidize and own the means of production. It 
is, indeed, an issue of national security.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Florida an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. YOHO. Support this farm bill. Defeat all antifarmer amendments 
that hurt American farm families only to enrich multinational soda and 
candy makers for more profits. Let us ensure the farmers and ranchers 
of this great country continue to plant the seeds and raise the herds 
that secure our national abundance, high quality, and least costly food 
prices in the world and support the bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues of the 
simple truth that process matters. If the process fails, the outcome 
fails. That is exactly what has happened with this farm bill.
  Instead of following regular order, as we have done in the past--and 
I was there personally to be a part of it and witness it--by taking 
this kind of legislation up through the subcommittees with open rules, 
giving all the members an opportunity to offer their amendments and 
their ideas and consider them and have the opportunity to write this 
bill through the subcommittees, instead, it has come from behind closed 
doors for the simple purpose of partisan positioning.
  In fact, members of the committee weren't even allowed to see this 
bill for weeks leading up to the consideration, nor were stakeholders 
and affected parties given the opportunity to review and express their 
thoughts. The result is a missed opportunity and an abandonment of a 
bipartisan, collaborative tradition that has worked so well for the 
farmers and the consumers in this country. It is a mean-spirited, bad 
bill--the result of a failed process--and it should be defeated.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Minnesota, agriculture 
is one of the primary drivers of our economy. Right now, farmers, 
ranchers, and agricultural workers across the country are looking to 
Congress for a strong farm bill that improves the farm safety net and 
brings certainty to producers in uncertain times because life on the 
farm isn't what it used to be.
  Today, farmers are suffering some of the worst rates of suicide in 
the country. General social isolation, downturn of the markets, low 
farm income, regulatory strains, and a lack of treatment options all 
make it hard for farmers to get the help they need.
  That is why I introduced the STRESS Act to boost resources 
specifically for farmers' mental health. With the support of Chairman 
Conaway and the House Agriculture Committee, I am proud to see it 
included in this year's farm bill.
  Our farmers who feed the world are feeling the weight of the world on 
their shoulders. It is time we get them the help and care they deserve.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, passing a farm bill that delivers a better 
deal to our growers could have and should have been a bipartisan 
process. But when Democrats arrived ready to work, the doors were 
shackled shut. Instead of coming together to help our producers 
struggling with a downturn in the agricultural economy, this 
hyperpartisan bill hurts everyone from pasture to plate.

  It cuts $23 billion from a program that feeds children, seniors, and 
veterans in addition to eliminating mandatory funding for rural 
development programs which are proven job creators in rural America. 
This bill also strips farmers, who are facing tightening market 
conditions, of crop insurance options.
  This ``harm'' bill is another step in the wrong direction for rural 
America. At a time when farmers are already feeling the pain of 
President Trump's impulsive trade war and Secretary Pruitt's attack on 
ethanol, I urge my colleagues: abandon this ``harm'' bill and work 
together on a farm bill that will strengthen rural America.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on each side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 14\3/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Minnesota has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in supporting H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 
2018.
  I have the great honor of representing Georgia's 12th District where 
agriculture is the number one industry. As a member of the House 
Agriculture Committee, my colleagues and I have worked diligently to 
craft a farm bill that works for our farmers and provides them the 
ability to provide a safe, secure, and economic food supply to this 
Nation.
  H.R. 2 improves the current farm safety net structure and offers 
farmers the choice between PLC and ARC for each covered commodity under 
title I to combat the downturn in the farm economy. It also makes 
strides in getting Americans back to work by helping those on 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance.
  I am the son of a farmer. I spent 35 years in the business community 
creating jobs. The greatest joy of my life is to give folks the dignity 
and respect they deserve to have a good job.
  How could we deny folks this opportunity?
  This bill gives them that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``yes'' for this important bill. Our farmers and our people need us.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the Education and 
Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot wrong with this 
bill, but as ranking member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I am particularly concerned about its impact on students.
  SNAP eligibility is tied to eligibility for other vital Federal 
programs, so the proposed cuts in SNAP eligibility will also cut access 
to free school meals for 265,000 children.

                              {time}  1730

  Research has consistently shown that students struggling with hunger 
have

[[Page H4052]]

lower grades, are less able to focus, and more likely to miss school. 
This bill would undermine the ability of hundreds of thousands of 
students to reach their full potential by cutting SNAP benefits for the 
family and reducing school benefits for children.
  In the wake of a $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations in the top 1 
percent, it is a shameful statement of priorities when you try to pay 
for these tax cuts by reducing food assistance programs for low-income 
students.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my strongest support for 
H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, commonly known as 
the farm bill.
  I am proud to serve Alabama's Second District, where agriculture is 
the largest employer, responsible for more than 93,000 jobs and more 
than $11 billion in economic impact.
  So, Mr. Chair, I know how critically important it is that Congress 
deliver agricultural policy that actually works for the farmers 
throughout Alabama, and our country, and makes their important work 
easier, not harder.
  That is why I am proud the new farm bill addresses many of the 
challenges farmers face every day, including streamlining and reducing 
burdensome Federal pesticide regulations, creating a program to address 
our Nation's feral hog problem, and strengthening the existing crop 
insurance program.
  In addition to this, the new farm bill makes several needed 
improvements to our country's nutrition assistance program by 
implementing strict work requirements and closing loopholes that allow 
for abuses of the system.
  I am proud that the new farm bill maintains vital nutrition for our 
most vulnerable Americans when they truly need it, while making a 
commitment to helping these individuals improve their circumstances.
  I support the legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I have always believed that we should incentivize able-
bodied Americans to work instead of encourage them to remain dependent 
on the government, so I'm proud that the new farm bill reflects our 
conservative principles.
  I am pleased that this legislation provides a commitment to our 
nation's farmers while taking important steps towards reforming our 
food stamps program.
  I will continue to advocate for policies that give fair treatment to 
our Alabama commodities like cotton, peanuts, timber, poultry, 
soybeans, and catfish. I'm eager to cast my vote in favor of the new 
farm bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 2 and to express my profound disappointment in the process that 
has led us to where we are today.
  As the first New Hampshire Representative to serve on the Agriculture 
Committee in decades, I am humbled by the responsibility to fight for 
New Hampshire's small family farms.
  When we last considered the farm bill in 2014, I supported the 
legislation because, while not perfect, that bill provided long-term 
certitude to our Nation's farmers and represented a compromise between 
Republicans and Democrats.
  The farm bill has always been a bipartisan piece of legislation, but 
the bill we vote on this week represents a complete departure from that 
bipartisan process. Democrats were pushed away from the negotiating 
table by an extreme ideological agenda that would increase food 
insecurity for millions of Americans, slash mandatory spending on 
critical rural development and conservation programs, and lead to 
265,000 children losing access to free and reduced school lunch.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge 
support for H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, also 
known as the farm bill.
  Rural America needs our support. Farm income has fallen approximately 
50 percent since 2013. That is one of the steepest drops since the 
Great Depression. The costs of production have steadily declined, while 
commodity prices have fallen. Unfair trade practices, like the dumping 
of specialty crops into our markets from Mexico, are hurting our U.S. 
producers. The digital divide caused by inadequate or a lack of 
broadband services has held back innovation, job growth, and education 
in rural America. Crises like the opioid epidemic have stricken rural 
communities across America, just as it has our cities.
  Mr. Chairman, the farm bill addresses all of these challenges while 
also taking the first major step in this Congress toward the 
President's vision of meaningful welfare reform. This is our 
opportunity to provide the needed certainty and support for our farmers 
and producers, while also providing commonsense reforms that will 
support the President's agenda of achieving prosperity in our rural 
communities. Passing a strong farm bill on time is key to this goal.
  I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important piece 
of legislation and oppose those amendments that will hamper its ability 
to aid rural America and keep our producers feeding not only America, 
but the world. This bill provides certainty to one of America's largest 
job sectors, while also standing for our conservative principles.
  Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of H.R. 2, the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, the farm bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I oppose the farm bill. It would hurt low- 
and middle-income families, take breakfast and lunch from children 
across this country, and fail hardworking farmers.
  It also undermines one of the Nation's most successful and popular 
conservation laws, the Endangered Species Act, by removing the 
requirement for EPA to consult with expert wildlife agencies on the 
impact of pesticides to imperiled wildlife.
  Pesticides are known to have been the cause of the dramatic decline 
of many species and a threat to public health. It should not be 
dispensed with in this legislation.
  The provisions in this legislation that are anti-environment, anti-
public health, anti-nutrition, and anti-working families are cause for 
opposition. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the chairman of the General Farm Commodities 
and Risk Management Subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Let me start by saying that it is not very often that we talk about 
agriculture in the context of national security. I believe it is next 
week we are going to be taking up the NDAA reauthorization. While that 
is very important to our national security, I think it is equally 
important to consider how vital our agriculture producers are to our 
national security. A country that can't feed itself is a country that 
is not secure. It is inviting danger and peril. All you have to do is 
look around the globe and see those nations that are in that situation. 
Most notably in our hemisphere, Venezuela can't feed themselves. You 
can see the turmoil that has ensued as a result.
  But there are other countries around the world. One of the big ones 
that we don't talk about very often and, quite frankly, we should, and 
that is China can't feed themselves. They have 1.4 billion people.
  What we should be doing is taking every effort during this debate to 
thank farmers across the country for what they do and for the security 
they provide to this Nation, recognizing that, without them, the 
nutrition programs that we are fighting over couldn't exist.
  Let's get a little different perspective, if we can, and recognize 
that, first and foremost, we have got to have the food produced, not 
only to provide a level of security in this Nation, but to be able to 
feed the 300 million-plus that call this country home.
  Second, we have to be about trying to secure that food source and 
making sure that farmers are in a competitive marketplace that gives 
them equal opportunities to sell their commodities.
  Certainly, the nutrition part of this is paramount. But I think most 
Americans across the country--and I think

[[Page H4053]]

there are polls that bear this out--some 75 percent of Americans say, 
yes, we probably should encourage folks to work and/or get educated as 
a component of receiving nutrition benefits. That is all we are saying. 
We are not trying to compromise anyone's nutrition or threaten a single 
calorie.
  One thing I think we need to clarify, too, is the Agriculture 
Committee has no jurisdiction over school nutrition programs.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just remind the gentleman that the 
nutrition program is permanently authorized. It doesn't even need to be 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the 2018 
Republican farm bill.
  As a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, I have 
participated in countless hearings about the needs of our Nation's 
farmers and families that depend on SNAP to fight hunger.
  Tragically, this bill doesn't reflect any of that testimony. It is a 
shortsighted, partisan bill that will have a detrimental impact on 
communities like mine. I cannot support it.
  In my home county of Mecklenburg, North Carolina, more than 55,000 
households depend on SNAP to eat every day. This bill would rob them of 
access to quality nutrition programs. In North Carolina, it is 
estimated that more than 133,000 people will lose their SNAP benefits 
if this bill passes, including over 51,000 children. Nationwide, 2 
million people would be kicked off the program and an estimated 265,000 
children would lose access to free or reduced meals at school. No 
eating at home. No eating at school.
  Adding new work requirements through an unfunded, untested mandate 
will bankrupt States and force more needy people out of the program. 
Let's scrap this flawed partisan farm bill and let's work together in 
regular order to draft a bill that helps America's farmers and families 
who depend on nutrition assistance.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Mecklenburg County, 
North Carolina, opposing H.R. 2 because of the detrimental effects and 
impact that it will have on our children and families there.

                                           Mecklenburg County,

                        Charlotte, North Carolina, April 17, 2018.
     Congresswoman Alma Adams,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Alma Adams: As you mark-up of the Farm 
     Bill reauthorization, H.R. 2 this week, I write to you in 
     support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     (SNAP) funding, formerly known as Food Stamps, which has 
     historically made up a significant part of this legislation. 
     This vital program offers nutrition assistance to millions of 
     eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides 
     economic benefits to communities. In total, more than 40 
     million low-income people depend upon this program to keep 
     their families fed.
       The Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2) is the 
     legislative vehicle for reauthorizing and reforming the 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 
     2023. The last enacted Farm Bill (PL 113-79) is set to expire 
     on September 30. The proposed reauthorization bill is 
     scheduled for markup with the House Agriculture Committee 
     this Wednesday, April 18. It contains several provisions and 
     budget cuts that are troubling and could detrimentally impact 
     our community.
       The bill includes provisions that expand work requirements 
     and punish the least fortunate members of our community who 
     are often times unable to find employment. Specifically, the 
     bill makes it mandatory that recipients of SNAP, who are 
     able-bodied adults, ages 18 to 59, are either employed or are 
     participating in state-run employment or job-training 
     programs. Participants could be denied benefits for not 
     meeting the new work requirements. The first suspension of 
     benefits would be for 12 months, while a second suspension of 
     benefits would be up to 36 months. Under current law, the 
     SNAP program already has work requirements for able-bodied 
     adults aged 18 to 49. Additionally, the new Farm Bill would 
     include spending cuts, which would make fewer people eligible 
     for benefits and directly harm working-poor families. 
     Mecklenburg County has real concern that these proposed 
     changes in H.R. 2 would negatively impact some of our poorest 
     citizens and cause serious difficulties for our community's 
     most vulnerable populations.
       Mecklenburg has 55,472 households that rely on SNAP to help 
     provide sustenance. The County also has specific concerns 
     with language in H.R. 2 that reduces spending by $5 billion 
     over 10 years through the ending of a broad-based categorical 
     eligibility that allows states to consider working poor 
     beneficiaries with higher incomes that put them above 130 
     percent of the federal poverty level.
       We look forward to working with you on this important 
     effort. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Dena R. Diorio,
                                       Mecklenburg County Manager.

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran), a member of the committee.
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition 
to H.R. 2. Some may call this a farm bill, but for my district, this is 
a ``harm'' bill.
  Unfortunately, this year's farm bill is deeply flawed. This bill 
lacks a significant commitment to the needs of rural communities, with 
no guaranteed funding for the rural development title.
  It is unclear to me how members of the committee say they understand 
the need of investment in rural America, but decided to cut $517 
million from rural development programs.
  As we work to help communities build stronger economies, we must 
ensure that we have a plan in place that lends a helping hand to those 
who need it. In Arizona, this bill will take food out of the mouths of 
tens of thousands of children and veterans. It is a sad day in America 
when we are debating a proposal that would make children go hungry.
  I hope for a robust debate on how we could promote rural economic 
development and how to improve the business climate for rural 
communities and work to address resource concerns by improving 
conservation programs like EQIP.
  Sadly, this bill was written in a back room and kept secret until the 
last possible moment. We owe the American people something better.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but also 
for his tremendous leadership on this bill and so many other issues.
  I rise in strong opposition to this disastrous farm bill. This bill 
cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $23 billion, 
taking food out of the mouths of 2 million Americans. Over 265,000 
children will lose benefits.
  Why in the world do congressional Republicans want more Americans to 
go hungry?
  This is immoral and it is wrong.
  These so-called work requirements won't help anyone work. They punish 
struggling families who are not getting enough hours at work or decent 
wages to help feed their families.
  Nutrition assistance helps 40 million people put food on the table. 
More than 80 percent of SNAP households work the year before or after 
receiving aid. The majority of people receiving SNAP benefits are 
children, disabled, and seniors.
  When I was young, I was a single mom raising two little boys. I 
relied on food stamps to help my family during a very difficult time in 
my life. It was a bridge over troubled waters. I want families to have 
this bridge over troubled waters now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the Record.
  Of the 265,000 children that have been mentioned a couple of times, 
95 percent of them would in fact maintain access to reduced lunch 
prices because their families make too much money to qualify for the 
free lunch, but 5 percent of that 265,000 would in fact maintain the 
free lunch program as it currently exists.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, 
Horticulture, and Research.

[[Page H4054]]

  


                              {time}  1745

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a district that 
relies on a strong farm bill. Illinois is a leading producer of 
soybeans, corn, and swine. Our economy relies on a farm bill that 
supports agriculture. Although we all eat, I realize there are many 
districts whose Members may not be as enthusiastic as I am about the 
farm bill. That is why there is something in this bill for every 
district.
  For those concerned about the deficit, I have good news. The last 
farm bill was the single largest cut in mandatory spending that we made 
in the entire 113th Congress. We built on these sound policy reforms in 
this bill.
  If you are a Member who wants to address the cycle of poverty that 
too many of our constituents are trapped in, this bill is for you. H.R. 
2 reforms the system and invests historic amounts in workforce 
training.
  Despite our growing economy, we have 9 million more people on SNAP 
today than we did at the height of the recession when jobs were scarce 
and unemployment was in the double digits. This isn't progress. This 
isn't helping to end the cycle of poverty.
  In my home State of Illinois, 67 percent of work-capable adults on 
SNAP are without work. A long recession left Americans disheartened, 
people dropping out of the labor force because they lost their job and, 
after months and months of searching, couldn't find another one. H.R. 2 
makes investments to give many of those same people hope in finding a 
job again.
  Four years ago I was a freshman, and the farm bill was my first 
opportunity to be part of a conference committee and see firsthand our 
democracy at work, Democrats and Republicans sparring over policy 
differences. But at least there was a debate. I am incredibly 
disappointed by my friends on the other side of the aisle who didn't 
offer any amendments in committee.
  Work requirements are not new. They were done in 1996 by a 
Republican-led Congress and Democratic President during a similar time 
of economic growth.
  When do the politics end and the serious policy discussions begin?
  Let's put politics aside, pass this important bill for our farmers, 
for our taxpayers, and for too many Americans trapped in poverty. Let's 
show the American people we can govern together.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
especially thank him for his exceptional leadership over the years to 
honor the historic collaboration that has always existed in our country 
between urban and rural America that is in all of our interests that 
our farm countries succeed, and that is in all of our interests that 
the American people are not food insecure. So I thank you, Mr. Ranking 
Member, for your outstanding leadership on behalf of America's farmers 
and hungry families.
  Mr. Chair, this bill is just a mystery to me because we have tried so 
hard over the years to work in a bipartisan way, to come together to 
write a farm bill that does honor that historic collaboration--urban, 
rural--meeting the nutritional needs of the American people, and 
encouraging the economic growth in farm country. This legislation does 
not do that, and I have some questions as to why.
  Some of the questions came to mind last week when I was on a farm in 
Iowa listening to hardworking men and women talk about their challenges 
with this farm bill: that it does not bolster or preserve the farmer 
safety net; that the bill reduces investments in agriculture research, 
conservation, and rural development; and that it cuts nutrition 
assistance that so many there, even in farm country, and in our country 
rely upon.
  When I was in Iowa, as I said, last week, I had the privilege of 
meeting a wonderful woman named Julia Slocum. Julia works two jobs. She 
is a third-generation farmer and a part-time librarian. Over the years, 
she has relied on the lifeline of SNAP to put food on the table during 
difficult times, a farmer relying on SNAP to put food on the table.
  I challenge House Republicans to explain to Julia why they are 
abandoning hardworking people like her, abandoning her twice by gutting 
the farmer safety net and by cutting SNAP.
  This bad bill steals food off the tables of children, seniors, 
students. 1.5 million of our veterans rely on the nutrition provision 
of this bill.
  It is not just our veterans. That would be reason alone to be 
concerned, 1.5 million. But 23,000 of the families of Active-Duty 
servicemembers need to have food stamps because they are food 
insecure--and they are hurt by this legislation--individuals with 
disabilities, working families, our seniors, students, children. 
Children.
  Democrats have always supported work initiatives for those who can 
work. Let's be clear: This is not a jobs bill. SNAP returns money to 
farmers, to our economy, and to the Treasury, creating $1.79 for every 
$1 in benefits, and supports more than 560,000 jobs across the country, 
including 50,000 in agriculture.
  Republicans are contending that they are investing in jobs. They are 
not investing in jobs. They are creating a bureaucracy and ignoring 
initiatives already in place to measure what really works in relating 
food to jobs. And they are wasting billions on new bureaucracies that 
would take decades to implement and that would increase hunger and 
poverty across the country.
  It is no wonder that so many faith-based groups across the country 
view this bill as one that does not reflect the values of America. 
Again and again, Republicans try to ransack the lifelines of working 
families to pay for handouts and to enrich the already wealthy. This 
bill abandons America's farmers when they are in a tough spot.
  The farm economy is struggling. As you know, farm prices are 
plummeting. More and more families are in danger of losing the farm, 
and that was before the Trump tariffs invited retaliation from China. 
Yet Republicans are creating a self-inflicted crisis farming 
communities can't afford and they can't control.

  I challenge House Republicans to explain to farmers and ranchers why 
they propose a bill that weakens the farmer safety net when we should 
be protecting family farmers--soybean, corn, wheat, pork, and specialty 
crop growers--from self-inflicted damage of Trump's trade brinkmanship.
  Explain why this bill slashes hundreds of millions from rural 
development initiatives, cuts small business loan guarantees, and adds 
new layers of bureaucracy to high-speed broadband grants when we should 
be investing in self-sufficiency for small towns.
  Explain, my Republican colleagues, why this bill eliminates funding 
for on-farm energy initiatives and biofuels when we should be embracing 
the American farmer's role in making America sustainable and energy 
independent.
  Explain, my colleagues, why this bill creates new loopholes for 
millionaires, multimillionaires, and billionaires to receive farm 
subsidies when we should be investing in the next generation of farmers 
and ranchers.
  For the sake of our children, families, and hardworking Americans 
such as Julia, for our veterans, for our servicemen and -women, 
Americans with disabilities, we must return to the table and craft a 
balanced, robust, bipartisan farm bill as we have done in the past and 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture knows is 
possible.
  We must return to the historic, decades-long bipartisan solution that 
weds our farmers and our hungry families together. Republicans must put 
aside politics and honor our responsibilities to 16 million men and 
women of agriculture and the nearly 41 million Americans who are food 
insecure. That is why I urge a ``no'' on this dangerous bill.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chair, as I have told you, it is an absolute honor 
to serve on the Committee on Agriculture, under the leadership of the 
chairman as well as the ranking member. There is no doubt about that. 
But I mainly say that based on the work that this committee does, the 
work that this committee does to serve those in agriculture and what 
that

[[Page H4055]]

service can do for the backbone industry of our country.
  However, as a Representative on this committee and as a 
Representative of the salad bowl of the world on the central coast of 
California, my country and, yes, my community expected more out of this 
farm bill.
  Look, in my area, with its flourishing specialty crop industry, we 
wanted more funding for the specialty crop research initiative. Because 
of our specialty crops, we have a labor shortage because of the people 
who are needed to pick those crops. Therefore, we needed stronger 
language in the bill for mechanization to help with our labor issues 
and to bridge that gap from the Salinas Valley into the Silicon Valley.
  With our burgeoning organic industry, we needed more funding and less 
cuts for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program so that we can 
properly invest in beginning producers.
  In addition to this, the majority is trying to implement an untested 
and unproven change to title IV of the SNAP provision. Such a change 
threatens to remove over a million people from the program and deeply 
affects the 74,000 people who are recipients of SNAP living and working 
in my community.
  We can do better by our farmers. We can do better by the families 
across our country by getting back to our bipartisan roots. That is how 
we help our agriculture. That is how we help our country.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the 
Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. Included in this great bill are 
two bills I introduced: the WATER Act and the STRESS Act, which was 
introduced with other colleagues as well.
  The WATER Act improves water quality by easing access to the 
Conservation Innovation Grant program and reducing red tape. Iowans 
expect and deserve clean water, and this bill will help do that.
  The STRESS Act will help address the farmer suicide crisis gripping 
our Nation. By opening the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network, 
farmers facing tough times can get the help that they need. Our farmers 
feed, fuel, and sustain the world. It is only right we take steps to 
help them.
  I was also pleased--and I thank the chairman--that in the farm bill 
there are positive steps to address the food waste that is out there in 
our country. Our country wastes 40 percent of our food supply. As a 
cofounder of the Food Waste Caucus, I am committed to reducing food 
waste to combat hunger, as well as are many of my colleagues.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Conaway as well for his leadership by 
putting in the bill the Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison at the 
USDA so we can take another step to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 
2030.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have on our 
side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Chairman, it is with deep disappointment 
that I stand in opposition to the partisan farm bill. I joined the 
House Committee on Agriculture because of its reputation of being 
bipartisan. I represent an entire State--urban, rural, and suburban. 
The farm bill is vital. That is why I was so disappointed to see this 
breakdown.
  The goal of creating a thriving economy and moving people out of 
poverty is a goal we all share, and throughout my career I have worked 
to connect people with jobs. As Delaware's former secretary of labor 
and deputy secretary of health and social services, I have overseen 
both workforce development and economic safety net programs.

  I believe in work. We believe in work. However, the majority's 
proposal would essentially force individuals off SNAP to pay for an 
unproven, untested, severely underfunded program.
  What happens if your child gets sick or your car breaks down? Should 
that mean you and your child go hungry for up to a year if you are 
sanctioned?
  What makes this even more troubling is that the 10 pilot programs 
designed to give us best practices in providing employment and training 
services to SNAP recipients, one of which is in my home State of 
Delaware, have not been completed or evaluated and won't be until at 
least 2019.
  Why are we putting the cart before the horse? If the majority is 
really concerned with getting the policy right, why not wait until we 
have the evidence and the data to make good use of taxpayer dollars?
  To understand the impact on Delaware, I traveled across my State and 
met with farmers, emergency food providers, supermarket owners, and 
State agencies. But the conversation that surprised me the most was one 
I had recently with a father. He shared how, years ago, SNAP and public 
housing allowed him and his wife to raise three healthy daughters. 
Because of support, he was the first in his family to graduate from 
high school and college and, ultimately, to move out of poverty.
  He paid that debt back in multiple ways through service. He went on 
to become a social worker, a school administrator, and, subsequently, 
was elected city council president.
  The value of service was then passed down. One daughter went to work 
in the White House and is now a professor of social work at Rutgers 
University. The second daughter became an engineer and worked for the 
U.S. Army, protecting our troops. And his oldest daughter grew up to be 
a Congresswoman. That dad is my dad.
  Colleagues, we still have a chance to go back to the drawing board. 
The hopes, the dreams, the aspirations of 42 million people are in our 
hands. Let's not let them down.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe, but almost 5 years 
ago, Collin, Mike, we were on the floor of this very Chamber when we 
took up the previous farm bill, a farm bill that was well crafted and 
well intended. And on that day, if you remember, folks of good 
principle on both extremes of the perspective together managed to bring 
the bill down.
  Now, why do I bring that up? Because I simply want to remind all my 
colleagues, no farm bill is ever simple. They are all hard. 
Circumstances change from cycle to cycle, crop to crop, but it is 
always hard to do a farm bill.
  So why are we here? Why do we keep going through this process? 
Because, ultimately, we need to pass a comprehensive piece of 
legislation that will make sure we have the ability to raise the food 
and fiber that our neighbors need; that we can sell into the world 
markets to meet their needs; and, yes, that we provide the ability, 
through this same piece of legislation, so that our neighbors, who, 
through tough times, through, most often, circumstances beyond their 
control, have the ability to access enough of that food to meet their 
needs.
  So, yes, we have to have a farm bill. We have to have a farm bill. I 
would say to all my colleagues, this is a step in the long march to 
ultimately creating a final document that involves the other body and 
requires a signature by the Chief Executive of this country.
  Let's debate and argue and fight out amendments tonight and tomorrow 
and the next day. Let's avoid what happened 5 years ago by doing things 
that would try to kill the process. Let's keep the process moving 
forward. Let's refine. Let's perfect. Let's pass a comprehensive farm 
bill so the people who feed and clothe us have the ability to do it, so 
those who need help in receiving the resources they need have the 
ability to do it.
  We have no less option: Good faith. Do what you need to do, but let's 
get it done. There are people depending on us everywhere and around the 
world today.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I spoke earlier on the drawbacks of H.R. 2, I may 
not have mentioned, before I reserved, that I am very frustrated by the 
breakdown in this process that has got us to where we are.

[[Page H4056]]

  Now, Mr. Lucas is right, we do have to have a farm bill, but let's 
understand what we need to do that actually is required. Title 1 needs 
a farm bill. Title 2 needs a farm bill. Other titles need a farm bill 
because they are only authorized for 5 years.
  SNAP is permanently authorized. If we didn't do anything, SNAP would 
go on like it is. Crop insurance is permanently authorized. If we 
didn't do anything, crop insurance would go on just like it is. So the 
part of the bill that we are worried about are these other parts that 
will expire on the end of September 30.
  Now, what happens if we don't get it done? We go back to permanent 
law. Some of my constituents think that is a good idea because it goes 
back to 100 percent of parity. Most people in America probably know 
what I am talking about when I talk about 100 percent of parity, but a 
lot of old timers in my district know very much what that is. And, you 
know, it is $9 corn. They would love to have $9 corn.
  So the permanent law is not an option. So we need to get something 
done. But my point is that we don't need to do some of the things that 
we are doing in these areas that are not required to do anything 
because they are permanently authorized.
  So, as I speak today, you know, I refused to give legitimacy to what 
has been, in my view, an illegitimate process. The chairman said we 
tried to work on a bipartisan basis. You know, we didn't raise any 
issues at the time because he said he didn't have any money and we were 
going along with the system. And that is till we got into the situation 
where this SNAP stuff came forward, you know, and I told you this was 
not going to fly in our caucus. And you can see over here the feelings 
that you have engendered with this proposal, you know, and it is 
breaking apart what we have had here in this country for a long time.
  I have been here for four farm bills. I have been here as a member, 
as a chairman, and as a ranking member. Now, as Frank said, each of 
these bills has had their share of headaches, and they have all, at the 
end of the day, though, had more common ground than opposition. And in 
the end, the Agriculture Committee has always produced a product that 
we could be proud of because we knew we delivered the best deal 
possible, given the circumstances that we were dealing with.
  We have always been able to work together for the mutual benefit of 
farmers, rural advocates, and consumers. Prior to my time here, Senator 
Dole and McGovern carried the medal--Hubert Humphrey from my State, 
George Aiken before that. These weren't ideologues, but they weren't 
pushovers either. Each knew where their party stood. Each also knew the 
value making sure the length between people who grow the food and the 
people who buy food and make sure that that link was strong.
  So let me be as clear as I can be. In my opinion, breaking up that 
coalition, ruining a partnership that predates all of us is a huge 
mistake. More than that, the closed- and one-sided nature of this 
process that we have been through is something that I have to call out. 
It does not bode well for farm and food legislation to come.
  No party can do this alone. It is too big of a job. So, as ranking 
member on the House Agriculture Committee, I want you to know that I am 
willing to come back to the table but only when the majority has the 
ability to sit down and figure this out together.
  I was told on this SNAP stuff by the chairman that he could not 
negotiate it--it was nonnegotiable. That is what got us into this 
problem. So, when we get to the point where we can actually start 
talking about negotiation, I am willing to come back to the table and 
try to get back to a bipartisan situation.

  Folks want to do welfare reform. I was there in 1996. I was part of 
the deal at that time. It should be done as a comprehensive review of 
all of the programs, not just the farm bill.
  I just think it is a huge mistake for us to be trying to tell people 
that, somehow or another, putting work requirements and these other 
things into the farm bill is going to overhaul the welfare system. That 
is just not true. Most people don't get enough money out of the Food 
Stamp program to make a difference one way or the other. It is not food 
stamps that are causing people to be on welfare. It is not food stamps 
that are causing people not to work, you know, and that is my big 
objection to this.
  It is just ideology run amuck, and it is screwing up the process 
here, and I hope that we don't do so much damage that we can't pull 
this back together at the end of the day and get this done.
  So I am going to vote against H.R. 2, and I urge all my colleagues to 
do as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am saddened by the loss of the bipartisan work 
that we have typically done on this committee. I have bragged about 
being one of the few bipartisan committees in Congress back home a lot, 
and it is sad.
  Just as the ranking member just said, that his side refused to 
negotiate any changes to SNAP, I simply said: Work requirements--
strengthening the work requirements is going to have to be a part of 
what we do. And that was where we are with respect to that.
  What I heard over and over and over again on the other side is that 
the non-SNAP portions of the farm bill, while maybe less than they 
would like to have, are nevertheless essential and vital, and I am 
looking forward to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle working 
as diligently as they can to defeat all of those poison pill amendments 
that will have to be offered over the next several days so that we can 
maintain that safety net for production in agriculture that they need 
and deserve without the legislative history of a loss on this floor 
that is totally unnecessary. So I am hopeful that my colleagues over 
there will be a part of that.
  Mr. Chairman, the entire State of California is under a work waiver 
so that no one in California has to work to be able to stay on food 
stamps. That doesn't make any sense to me when you have got an 
unemployment rate of 4 percent across this country. So something has to 
change in that regard.
  What I have heard over and over, not only today but throughout this 
debate, is folks from the other side, they are full out, full throttle 
in favor of work requirements, couldn't be more supportive of work 
requirements--just not these.
  Over and over and over, they are full out in favor. We have got a 
legislative history of all of my colleagues on the other side talking 
about how important it is for job training, for education, for getting 
folks the skills and tools they need to be able to have meaningful 
work--just not these. Got it.
  My ranking member had a letter from his folks that said not to 
negotiate on SNAP. I took him at his word on that in regard. It is 
disappointing that we have reached this point.
  But we are at that point. We now have a bill before us that does make 
meaningful reforms to the work requirements under food stamps, that 
does not touch the working poor. Folks who are willing to work 20 hours 
a week, no matter how long they are in that circumstance, we are going 
to be shoulder to shoulder with them to try to get the support they 
need.
  We are also trying to create a State-based State-run program in which 
the Federal taxpayer pays for work that the States can do on job 
training. There is no better spot to locate that than there because we 
cannot create a one-size-fits-all training program here in the United 
States House of Representatives. I trust our States to be able to do 
that. Those States have the capacity. They have the bandwidth to make 
that happen. Comments to the contrary are really misplaced.
  So, as we move forward through the rest of the debate, I would 
encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing all of those poison pill 
amendments that have been presented that would harm the non-SNAP 
portion of the farm bill and support the work that we have done so 
that, as my good colleague from Oklahoma just said, we can continue to 
move this process forward, understand what the Senate gets done, move 
to conference, and move a bill to the President's desk by September 30 
so that farmers and ranchers across this country, who we are the most 
keen to support, have that certainty of what the next 5-year support 
system looks like.

[[Page H4057]]

  Right, wrong, or indifferent, they deserve that kind of assurance, 
that kind of confidence that they will have the farm program to back 
them up and their bankers are supported in that regard as well. So I am 
asking my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and fend off those poison pill 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mitchell, Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________