[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4150-H4163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, AGRICULTURE AND
NUTRITION ACT OF 2018
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 900 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 900
Resolved, That 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 further
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. No further amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further 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
[[Page H4151]]
further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment pursuant to this
resolution the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 900, providing for further
consideration of a very important piece of legislation for America's
farmers and ranchers: H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act,
commonly referred to as the farm bill. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 2 under a structured rule, allowing for
consideration of 31 amendments that were offered.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I traveled to every county in my
district for one reason: to listen, to hear, and to get the input and
the concerns from farmers, ranchers and producers across central
Washington State. I traveled to Pateros, where my constituents
discussed the vital need for strengthening market access and opening
new sources for exporting across the globe.
I visited with farmers from East Wenatchee in Douglas County who
discussed the importance of commodity sourcing and stressed the need
for stronger education for the public about farming and where the food
that lands on our tables comes from.
I heard from constituents in Prosser and Benton and Yakima Counties
who stressed the importance of agricultural research from producers in
Quincy, who shared their personal stories of the impacts of crop
insurance on their livelihoods, and from farmers in Othello who raised
concerns regarding regulatory burdens on the agricultural community.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to say that this farm bill
makes great strides in addressing these challenges that face America's
farmers. The rule we bring before the House provides for further
consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2, the Agriculture
and Nutrition Act, a bill that is critically important to my district
in central Washington and to rural districts just like it across the
country.
As a farmer myself and as a former State agricultural director, I
know how important these farm policies are when it comes to our
agricultural economy. This farm bill strengthens the farm safety net to
help America's farmers and ranchers compete.
After 5 years of depressed prices, and a 52 percent drop in farm
income, our farmers need us--they need Congress--to reauthorize these
important programs.
Mr. Speaker, while American farmers have faced these depressed prices
and severe drops in farm income, we, luckily, have a robust safety net
in place. Due to the previous 2014 farm bill, our agriculture community
was able to hold on and continue to provide American consumers with
food in our grocery stores, in our schools, and in our food banks.
It is incumbent upon us to ensure these policies continue. We must
pass this farm bill and ensure a steady food supply will be on the
shelves and in our markets for the years to come.
The underlying legislation includes the creation of a new
international market program, which I would argue is more important
today than ever before. Programs within it, including the Market Access
Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, are incredibly
important to producers seeking to maintain and expand their export
markets for U.S. agricultural products and commodities. The Market
Access Program, on its own, is a net positive program, which for every
$1 spent, $28 is returned to the American economy.
I know these critical trade and export resources are at the top of
the minds of American farmers and producers across the country, and we
must continue to ensure their availability and access for the
agricultural industry.
This bill also maintains and strengthens the Nation's nutrition
programs to assist those who struggle to put food on the table, while
providing critical training to help people attain the skills necessary
to gain good-paying jobs, financial self-sufficiency, and better
futures for themselves and their families. It supports the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, without any cuts in funding.
Instead, this bill adds further funding and empowers States with the
flexibility on how to best administer their respective programs.
The State of Washington has done innovative work in their
administration of SNAP through the BFET and the RISE programs to help
some of the most vulnerable populations, and I am pleased that this
farm bill will allow these programs to continue if the State so
chooses.
This legislation contains employment and education provisions for
those who need a hand up due to falling on hard times.
Mr. Speaker, the farm bill contains comprehensive approaches to farm
policy, nutrition, trade, conservation, crop insurance, regulatory
reform, rural development, animal health, specialty and organic crops,
and provisions to help beginning farmers and ranchers.
This rule provides for further consideration of amendments offered by
our colleagues in the House on a great variety of these issues. I look
forward to listening to the robust debate on potential provisions to
strengthen this legislation.
As this is the first farm bill I have had the opportunity to engage
in since being in Congress, I welcome input from my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle and from every perspective. We must continue to
bring forward solutions for America's farmers, ranchers, rural
communities, and families.
Mr. Speaker, this body, the people's House, is made up of many walks
of life. We have physicians. We have attorneys. We have ordained
ministers. We have engineers, school administrators, former State and
local government officials, scientists, and law enforcement officials.
Today, I am proud to come before you as a farmer. I am not the only
one.
There are maybe about 20 farmers, ranchers, and producers in the
House, in the people's House. Among us are an almond farmer from
central California, a blueberry farmer from the State of Maine, a
rancher from South Dakota, a cattleman from Kentucky, a rice farmer
from Minnesota, and, yes, a proud hops farmer from the Yakima Valley
from the State of Washington.
I am privileged to come before you in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act. I
humbly urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the bill, and
strengthen the future for America's farmers and all of those who depend
on them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday about the big-picture numbers behind
this cruel bill, how it would cut the SNAP benefits that families rely
on to buy groceries by over $20 billion. That includes slashing
benefits for vulnerable adults like veterans, the chronically homeless,
and teenagers aging out of foster care by $9.2 billion.
There is a provision in this bill that would rip benefits away from
nearly 1 million people, mostly from working
[[Page H4152]]
families with kids, by eliminating an important State flexibility
option called categorical eligibility.
The bill even included a provision that would have constructed
barriers to accessing SNAP for those with disabilities who have out-of-
pocket utility costs--that is, until Democrats shamed the majority into
abandoning it as part of their manager's amendment unveiled late last
night.
But get this: this fix didn't come without a cost, Mr. Speaker.
Tucked into the manager's package--which was, yet again, written in
secret--is a provision that will kick over 600,000 vulnerable adults
off of SNAP in the first 2 years after enactment of this bill--2 years
before their misguided work bureaucracy goes into effect. Six hundred
thousand vulnerable men and women will lose their benefits before they
even have the opportunity to take advantage of the majority's new make-
work program.
Really? What are you thinking?
This entire bill is an embarrassment, and this manager's amendment
only makes it worse. It should be scrapped and sent back to the
Agriculture Committee, where we can have real bipartisan negotiations
and craft a bill that actually helps people, because despite some
changes around the margins, the Republican farm bill remains an
unmitigated disaster.
{time} 1230
Today I want to zoom in on that big picture and give telling examples
of how this disastrous Republican bill would impact real people in
their everyday lives, because that is what is at stake with the
Republican farm bill. That is what we need to be focussed on, because
it goes well beyond the numbers on a page.
McClatchy reported a story earlier this month that put it succinctly,
entitled: ``50-Something Food Stamp Recipients Could Face Tough Job
Search Under Proposed Rules.''
Take, for example, a woman named Sabrina, who was quoted in the
story. She works side jobs, like cleaning houses and doing yard work,
but has a difficult time finding steady employment at her age of 59.
This bill will take away her benefits, because she may not meet its 20-
hour-per-week requirement. She is working. She is exactly the kind of
person my Republican friends say they want to support. Do they think
she purposely found jobs that pay so little and have so few hours? That
doesn't fit so nicely into the majority's press releases, but that is
the reality.
Or take, for example, Thomas, a single dad who lost his wife a few
years ago and is raising his preteen daughter on his own. He has worked
diligently to find stable employment, but jobs are scarce in his
community. Without SNAP and reduced-price school meals, Thomas said he
and his daughter ``would not be able to survive.''
These are the kind of people my Republican colleagues are demonizing
during this debate, and it is deeply frustrating.
Or take Lisa, a working mother of four kids earning about $14 per
hour as a nursing assistant. Lisa has to stretch her monthly income to
cover rent and utilities after-school care, clothing, and car costs so
that she can get to her job. Currently, she receives a modest SNAP
benefit to feed her family and her kids receive free school meals, but
because her income is just over the 130 percent threshold for a family
of five, she would automatically lose her SNAP benefits if this bill
becomes law.
For Lisa, SNAP makes an incredible difference in her ability to feed
her children.
Or take Elton, a U.S. Navy veteran who lost his benefits for 2 years
because of the strict work requirements and time limits that are
already part of the SNAP law. During the 2-year period he was unable to
access SNAP benefits, Elton was hungry every day wondering what he
could eat in order to get by.
It wasn't that Elton chose not to work. He worked physically
demanding jobs his entire life, but he lost his job after an injury. He
continues to struggle with health conditions and doesn't have reliable
access to transportation; issues that are exacerbating his job search.
Under this bill, Elton may lose his modest food benefits entirely.
These are real people, and if the majority on the Agriculture
Committee actually took the time and did a hearing on the heartless
nutrition title in this bill, they would have heard these and many
other real-life stories.
Take a moment to think about what you are doing here. My Republican
colleagues are denying food benefits to veterans, single dads
struggling to find work, and working moms. Why? Because Paul Ryan asked
you to? Because of a myth that people aren't struggling? It is
sickening.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just legislation by sound bite; bad
legislation. It demonizes the poor and trades in stereotypes,
apparently just to help some in the majority with their next hit on FOX
News.
This bill has real consequences. It will hurt real people, our
constituents, yours and mine, in every single congressional district in
this country.
Now, it is obvious that this isn't a serious attempt at legislating,
because the process here was atrocious. The majority ignored the
recommendations from Democratic and Republican witnesses during the
Agriculture Committee's 23 hearings on SNAP. Controversial provisions
were inserted into this bill without explanation on where they came
from. I asked. I still can't find out. Democrats were left in the dark
as this legislation was drafted, we were left to read about it in news
reports; a total affront to the bipartisan tradition that has defined
the farm bill for years.
Now, the majority may be calling this a farm bill, but it is really a
total transformation of our social safety net. It is a farm bill that
doesn't even improve the farm economy. Let me state, our farmers work
hard, they should be valued, and they certainly deserve a hell of a lot
better than what is contained in this bill.
If Republicans want to hurt our workers and denigrate the poor, they
are going to have to do it alone, because, make no mistake about it,
that is what this bill is designed to do and that is what it will do
unless the responsible adults in the Republican Party join us in
defeating it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr.
Conaway, and I have worked together on many issues, and I know that he
recognizes that the trade promotion programs that I referenced in my
opening remarks are vital to our agricultural economy.
For decades, USDA export development programs like MAP have helped
American farmers create, expand, and maintain access to foreign
markets. Throughout their history, this successful public-private
partnership has cultivated hundreds of billions of dollars in exports
and created millions of American jobs both in the agricultural sector
and in support industries, as well as the program brings a return to
the United States economy.
In the findings of the underlying bill, it states: ``United States
export development programs significantly increase demand for United
States agricultural products . . . generating a return of $28 in added
export revenue for each invested program dollar.''
Additionally: `` . . . our global competitors provide substantially
more public support for export promotion than is provided to United
States agricultural exporters.''
We are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the rest of the
world when it comes to agricultural trade.
Mr. Speaker, without these private contributions and the private
sector's resolve to support our export programs, it is very likely that
the U.S. would not be the net agricultural exporter of the highest
quality products that we are today. I think it is time that we look at
our export promotion programs and take a serious look if we want to
continue our exporting success.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill to grow the investment in the MAP
and FMD programs and I also offered an amendment that would have made a
smaller investment in the MAP and FMD programs, and while we are not
considering those amendments today, I am grateful that Chairman Conaway
has agreed to come and engage in this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.
[[Page H4153]]
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Newhouse for his commitment to
ensuring that American farmers and ranchers maintain the tools
necessary to remain competitive on the global stage.
As you well know, trade is of immense importance to the agricultural
industry, with U.S. agricultural exports estimated at $140 billion per
year and trade accounting for one of every $5 of agricultural
production value.
Through its extensive farm bill hearing series and listening
sessions, the committee heard from every segment of the agricultural
industry about the importance of maintaining support for our trade
promotion and our market development programs, especially considering
the uncertainty in the current trade climate.
While I am confident that America's farmers and ranchers are
incredibly efficient and can compete with anyone in the world on a
level playing field, they simply cannot be expected to compete against
foreign treasuries on their own.
So in addition to maintaining and strengthening the farm safety net,
H.R. 2 restores and increases funding for the popular and successful
Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program.
This was no small feat, considering the CBO zeroed out funding for
FMD as well as the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program in
its most recent baseline projections.
But the committee worked together to get creative and make it happen.
I certainly wish we could have come closer to answering the calls for
doubling funding for MAP and FMD, but am proud of the work we did, and
believe that the streamlined International Market Development Program
will give the newly established USDA Undersecretary for Trade and
Foreign Agricultural Affairs the tools necessary to continue tearing
down barriers to trade and opening up new markets to U.S. agricultural
products.
That said, we can always do better, so I am committed to working with
Mr. Newhouse and my colleagues in the Senate to continue searching for
additional funding for these important trade promotion efforts while we
move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative of Mr. Newhouse's efforts and his
support for these important programs. I look forward to working with
him in conference when the Senate gets their work done after we get our
bill passed.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Conaway for his
commitment to continue working on this important issue, and I look
forward to working with him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, is
leaving, I would just urge him to read the bill, because if he did, he
would realize that if this bill were to become law, there are 60,000
people in his home State of Washington who would lose SNAP benefits
just due to categorical eligibility changes alone; more would lose
their benefits, but just for this one tweak in this bill.
The majority of the people who would lose their benefits under
categorical eligibility changes are working families, working families
with kids. Children, Mr. Speaker, will lose their SNAP benefits and
many of them will lose access to free school meals.
So, again, for all the talk on the other side about how this bill is
somehow a good bill for families, read the bill. It is a pretty cruel
bill for working families and for children.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that we defeat the previous question,
and if so, I will offer an amendment ensuring that before the
legislation can take effect, the President must certify to Congress
that none of the administration's recent trade and tariff actions and
negotiations will harm U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture
producers.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
appreciate the time.
Mr. Speaker, hardworking families across the heartland know firsthand
what the negative impacts of trade can look like. They have lived
through it in places like Galesburg, Illinois, when the Maytag plant
padlocked its gates and sent every last one of those jobs to Mexico.
They lived through it in Freeport, Illinois, when venture capitalists
bought out the Sensata factory and sent every last one of those jobs
over to China.
And today, at the end of planting season, corn growers and soybean
farmers and pork producers all across the heartland are getting hit in
their wallet by the Trump trade war.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago I rode in a John Deere tractor with a young
soybean farmer named Jared Kunkle while he was planting his soybeans.
You see, right now as planting season is wrapping up, our farmers are
making a lot of tough decisions. That is because in Illinois and many
of our neighboring States, our soybean farmers sell about a quarter of
their crops to China. In fact, in Illinois, if our State was its own
country, we would be the fourth largest producer of soybeans in the
world.
So when President Trump's thumbs got the better of him and started
tweeting us into a trade war with China, there were very real
consequences for the families that I serve. To be clear, those
consequences and the harm and uncertainty that they are generating is
being felt right now.
In fact, just this morning, there was a headline in Bloomberg News
that I want to read to you, I want to show to you: ``China Buys Record
Amount of Russian Soy as it Shuns U.S. Growers.''
That is this morning.
The fact is, our farmers have been struggling in a tightening market
with low profit margins. So in 2016, when President Trump stood at a
podium in Iowa and proudly declared that he would ``end this war on the
American farmer,'' they took him at his word. Midwesterners do that; we
believe people when they say something, and we also believe that
promises ought to be kept.
For farmers like Jared Kunkle of Cameron, Illinois, and thousands of
farmers like him, that promise has been broken.
It has been broken by this President, and now, if you do not support
this amendment, it will also be broken by this Congress.
So I urge you, please keep your word. Support this measure to protect
our hardworking farmers and ranchers from this Trump trade war. Let's
work together. And as the President says, let's ``end this war on the
American farmer.''
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think that the gentlewoman from Illinois speaks on behalf of a lot
of Members in this Chamber. Nobody wants to see a trade war. Nobody is
advantaged by a trade war.
I think so many of the provisions that are in this underlying bill,
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2, are designed to create more stability for farm
families.
The gentlewoman is absolutely right when she references the
instability trade war conversations create. So much more important,
then, that we come together now to provide that safety net and that
stability that is included here in H.R. 2.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's encouragement that we get to the other
end of these trade negotiations, and I do believe that is something
that we all share.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one of the amendments made in
order
[[Page H4154]]
by this rule. The Foxx-Davis amendment would dramatically alter
American sugar policy by eliminating the economic safety net for sugar
producers.
There is a Domino Sugar Refinery located in my district in Yonkers,
New York, which has been a staple of the neighborhood for almost a
century. According to their own figures, the refinery employs 280
people and sustains an additional 138 jobs through trucking, terminal
operations, cargo handling, and ship piloting. That is more than 400
local jobs, most of them union jobs, supporting local families and
pumping additional dollars into our communities.
These are the men and women I represent, and they are the ones for
whom I cast my vote. I will cast my vote against the Foxx-Davis
amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
America's sugar policy is working. It has operated at zero cost to
taxpayers in 14 of the past 15 years, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture projects that sugar will run at a zero cost to taxpayers
over the next 10 years.
According to the International Sugar Organization, food manufacturers
in the U.S. pay 10 percent less for sugar than other developed
countries. Meanwhile, America's grocery shelf sugar prices are among
the lowest in the world.
Again, most importantly, the reason I rise is that the U.S. sugar
industry provides good union jobs. Without the current sugar policy,
142,000 American jobs are in jeopardy of being outsourced, and the U.S.
stands to lose nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just spoke about one of the amendments
that is going to be offered today. In total, there are 51 different
amendments that have been made in order both in the rule that we did
yesterday and this rule that we hope that our colleagues will support
today, 51 different amendments proffered by Members of this Chamber to
try to make this bill better. If we pass this rule today, we will be
able to move to the underlying bill for consideration of those
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
for reminding us that there were 51 amendments made in order, but he
forgot to mention that 54 were blocked.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lawson), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the House Republican farm bill. I really didn't think that I would have
to say the ``Republican farm bill'' when we worked so diligently in
committee.
This bill would strip our Nation's most vulnerable of the necessary
resources they need to feed their families. The farm bill would bring
hunger and pain to children. The bill kicks 265,000 schoolkids out of
free and reduced lunch, and I have attended a lot of those schools
where I see the kids on free and reduced lunch.
Florida will be the hardest hit State resulting from the removal of
categorical eligibility. In addition, 130,000 hardworking Floridians
will go hungry as a result of this farm bill.
The farm bill doesn't just hurt Floridians. It hurts the entire
country. It hurts seniors. It hurts college students and young adults.
It hurts the disabled, and it even hurts our active military families.
The farm bill also hurts rural communities. I represent several of
those rural communities in north Florida, and it also hurts the
communities that we border in rural Georgia that I receive calls from.
Before voting on this bill, I want to remind my colleagues of the
motto of the USDA, ``Do right and feed everyone.'' The farm bill does
not do right, and it surely doesn't feed everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I want to end with a quote from Isaiah 58:10.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LAWSON of Florida. ``If you pour yourself out for the hungry and
satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the
darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.''
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to associate myself with the gentleman from Florida in his commitment
to public service. He is a relatively new Member to this Chamber, but
he has been fighting for his constituents since he arrived, and I
admire him for that.
There are lot of men and women in this Chamber who fit that bill, Mr.
Speaker. I wish we spent more time celebrating those good public
servants among us.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure at this time to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a gentleman who fits exactly
that mold. The gentleman from Maine has come time and time again to
this floor, to committees, every single opportunity he has, to build
bipartisan support, to work together with his colleagues, to work not
just on behalf of the citizens of Maine, but on behalf of all
Americans. He really is a model for energy and partnership on something
that everyone in this Chamber would agree on.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind
words. I would agree with him, Maine is the greatest State in the
Union. I know he didn't say that, but I know he meant that.
Mr. Speaker, Maine is the home of the most honest, hardest working
people you can find anywhere in this country. We grew up in a very
resilient, independent time in the State of Maine, and we cared for our
neighbors and friends because it is compassionate to make sure you
extend a helping hand.
Mr. Speaker, my 90-year-old mother was a terrific nurse. She had a
career in nursing, caring for thousands of folks in nursing homes and
hospitals throughout central Maine. My dad, who is now 88, was a
beloved seventh grade social studies teacher and a coach and a
basketball official for 30 years throughout the State.
I was raised in a very big-hearted Franco-American family devoted to
helping others, and that is why I work so hard to make sure government
does the same thing.
I have got some great news for folks across America who are looking
to escape poverty and work their way up the ladder of independence. For
2 years, I have been pushing very hard to include job training,
commonsense job training, community service, and work requirements for
able-bodied adults with no disabilities themselves, no young kids at
home, no elderly parents they are caring for, in order to receive food
stamps.
We have got to be compassionate, Mr. Speaker, to help folks escape
poverty instead of being trapped in a government program that has no
end to it. The role of government, Mr. Speaker, is not to keep folks
trapped in poverty and help make them comfortable living in it, but to
try to give them a helping hand so they can learn a job skill, get a
job, and live better lives with more independence.
Now, my work requirement, against what the media has reported and
continues to report, has no cuts to food stamps by imposing these work
requirements. If the benefits are not used because someone got a job,
they are simply recycled back into job training.
And if you are pregnant or caring for young kids or you have a
disability yourself, again, you are exempt from these requirements. But
if you are able to work, we need to be compassionate and require people
to work to lift themselves out of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, there is one other part of the farm bill that I am
really proud of that is included in the bill, and that is one that
helps rural Maine and rural America. For the first time, locally grown
fruits and vegetables can now be frozen or dried or pureed in order to
qualify for school lunches and school snacks.
That means taxpayer dollars are able to buy foods that are just as
nutritious as those that are fresh, save a lot of money, and make sure
our kids can eat in a healthy way year round, and it also helps our
local farmers.
I have one son, Mr. Speaker, who is 27, and I raised him from the
time he was in diapers. Nothing was more important than making sure he
had nutritious food on the table to eat. This helps us do that.
[[Page H4155]]
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everybody to vote ``yes'' for this farm
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maine coming here and
giving a speech to the cameras, but I would suggest he read the bill.
When he says that nobody will lose their benefits, no benefits will be
cut from SNAP, he is wrong. The bottom line is that benefits will be
cut. Benefits will be cut to support an underfunded, unproven,
ridiculous excuse for a workforce and training program.
I also should say I hope nobody wants to emulate the State of Maine
when it comes to dealing with people who are struggling in poverty and
who need food. I would instruct my colleagues to read an article that
appeared in The Washington Post last year about what Maine's harsh
policies have resulted in.
A veteran who served this country with distinction lost his job due
to an injury and, because of Maine's strict work requirements, was
thrown off of his SNAP benefits, became homeless, and was skinning
squirrels in order to be able to survive. That is not a compassionate
policy that I think any State or, certainly, this country should want
to reach toward.
One of the things I am proud about the SNAP program is that it means
that we recognize that we have an obligation to make sure that nobody
in this country goes hungry. Why is that such a radical idea? Why has
this program been so demonized?
When the gentleman talks about a life of dependency, read the
statistics from the USDA. The average time somebody is on SNAP is less
than a year. That is not a life of dependency. I am not sure what he is
talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of this farm bill from
President Donald Trump and the Republicans in this Congress means more
subsidies for the rich and greater hunger for the poor.
The food stamp program is one of the most important and successful
antihunger programs in our Nation. Last year, it prevented 42.2 million
people from going hungry, including 4.8 million seniors and 1.5 million
low-income military veterans. And yet my colleagues in the majority are
seeking to undermine food stamps as they shield farm subsidies for the
rich.
When you take a look at the number of people who are the farm subsidy
beneficiaries and the millions of people who are the SNAP
beneficiaries, what you will see is that the SNAP beneficiaries get
$1,115 per year, and the farm subsidy beneficiaries get almost $10,000
a year. Farms receive more than six times the benefit of a person
receiving food stamps even though the vast majority of the farm bill
beneficiaries are food stamp recipients.
This farm bill would kick 2 million people off of food stamps,
cutting benefits by more than $23 billion. Meanwhile, Republicans
refuse to include limits on subsidies provided for crop insurance, one
of the few Federal programs without any eligibility caps or payment
limits. That is the untold story: who benefits.
In the Republican tax scam for the rich, 83 percent of the benefits
went to the top 1 percent. The Republican farm bill is rigged, as well,
for the rich.
Farm subsidies, which the CBO says will cost $12.6 billion more than
planned, are so skewed toward the rich that the top 10 percent of
farms, about 76,000 farms, received over 60 percent of all farm
subsidies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, SNAP recipients have income limits, asset
limits. They get $1.40 per meal. Millionaires and billionaires who
pocket farm subsidies do not.
SNAP recipients have work requirements. Millionaires and billionaires
who pocket farm subsidies do not, even though many of them do not work
the land.
Nearly 18,000 people in the 50 biggest cities received farm
subsidies. They do not work the land. They do not till the soil. Where
are their work requirements?
In fact, 23 Republican Members of this Congress who vocally oppose
SNAP have financial ties to farms that receive subsidies. They are
poised to support this bill. They get theirs while the kids go hungry.
The country needs to know this. In the land of food abundance, in the
United States, no one should go hungry. The Republican farm bill is a
massive giveaway to the rich, which will deny children in our country
food. It is unspeakable. We need to eradicate hunger. We do not need to
eradicate the antihunger programs.
{time} 1300
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The farm bill is a little different this year than what we have seen
in years past. We would ordinarily have more bipartisan support here on
the floor. We got sideways on a couple of issues early on in the
process, but the arguments that we are hearing aren't different than
the arguments we traditionally hear in a farm bill, as if we are
pitting those families in need of food against those families who
produce the food. We are not.
This bill is H.R. 2 for a reason, Mr. Speaker. A lot of folks don't
understand how bill numbers get handed out in this institution. They
get handed out by order of priority.
H.R. 1 was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill has brought
unemployment down to the lowest levels in my lifetime and economic
growth to the highest levels we have seen in decades.
H.R. 2 is the farm bill, because if you want to know who benefits
from American farm policy, it is anybody who eats--anybody who eats.
I tell folks, Mr. Speaker, we don't need to give every child a
laptop. We need to send every child on a mission trip around the globe
to see how other families live, to see how other countries do it. We
are so blessed in this country, and we take it for granted oftentimes.
For example, I can put up charts about the distribution of farm
policy until the cows come home, but the largest 15 percent of farms in
this country produce almost 90 percent of all the food.
I will say that again. Those folks who are doing it bigger and better
than anybody else, those 15 percent of farmers produce almost 90
percent of American food. And I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker,
we can't afford to lose those 15 percent of farmers.
What keeps food in this country available and affordable is a
consistent farm policy, which is why, time and time again, Republicans
and Democrats come together from across rural America to try to provide
certainty to American agriculture.
It is the largest part of the Georgia economy, Mr. Speaker:
agriculture. That is true of so many districts, so many States across
this land.
This ought to be a partnership. It is not today, and I regret that.
We are going to have opportunities to make that change going forward,
but just understand, for folks who are here seeing this debate for the
very first time, go back and see the farm bill debate from 5 years ago.
You will see the same accusations. You will see the same
recriminations. You will see the same fear and scare tactics used. Then
you will see a huge bipartisan vote because this bill is so important
to so many Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record the article that I referred for you to read
called ``Trump to Poor Americans: Get to Work or Lose Your Benefits,''
which talks about a veteran in Maine that basically was shut out of his
food benefit because of Maine's policies.
[From the Washington Post, May 22, 2017]
Trump to Poor Americans: Get To Work or Lose Your Benefits
(By Caitlin Dewey and Tracy Jan)
For a period last year after he lost his food stamps, Tim
Keefe, an out-of-work and homeless Navy veteran, used his
military training to catch, skin and eat squirrels, roasting
the animals over an open fire outside the tent he pitched in
frigid Augusta, Maine.
The new additions to Keefe's diet resulted from a decision
by state authorities to tighten work requirements for
recipients of the social safety net--forcing the 49-year-old,
who lost his job at a farm equipment factory because of an
injury, off the food stamp rolls.
``I was eating what I could find, and borrowed from friends
and strangers,'' Keefe
[[Page H4156]]
said in testimony to the Maine legislature. ``There were many
times . . . when I would go two or even three days without
food. If one was inclined to lose a lot of weight, I could
recommend this diet wholeheartedly.''
Now the Trump administration in its first major budget
proposal has proposed more stringent work requirements--
similar to those in effect in Maine and other states--to
limit eligibility for food stamps and a host of other
benefits as part of sweeping cuts to anti-poverty programs.
The White House budget proposal, due to be unveiled on
Tuesday, would reduce spending on anti-poverty programs from
food stamps to tax credits and welfare payments by $274
billion over a decade, largely by tightening eligibility for
these programs, according to administration officials. With
additional reforms on Medicaid and disability insurance,
total safety net cuts would top $1 trillion over 10 in years.
Making low-income Americans work to qualify for so-called
welfare programs is a key theme of the budget. ``If you are
on food stamps and you are able bodied, we need you to go to
work,'' said budget director Mick Mulvaney during a White
House briefing on Monday.
He said the strengthened requirements in the budget focuses
on putting the 6.8 million unemployed or underemployed
Americans back to work. ``There is a dignity to work,'' he
said, ``and there's a necessity to work to help the country
succeed.''
The White House did not offer details Monday on how the
work requirements would be implemented, other than saying it
would be ``phased in'' for able-bodied adults without
dependent children.
The White House estimated the combined reforms to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as
food stamps, would generate nearly $193 billion in savings
over a decade.
In addition to SNAP reforms, Trump will propose taking the
earned income and child tax credits away from undocumented
immigrants working in the United States, many of whom pay
taxes or have American born-children. That reform alone would
save $40 billion over a decade, according to the White House.
Anti-poverty advocates say the White House could implement
its desired reforms to SNAP in two ways: require recipients
to work more than the current minimum of 20 hours a week, or
cut the unemployment waivers in areas with high joblessness
rates.
The influential Heritage Foundation, as well as a number of
House conservatives have championed a crackdown on waivers,
leading many anti-poverty advocates to conclude that is the
most likely way the White House would implement its proposed
reforms.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation who has asked the White House to prioritize work
requirements, said the Trump administration needs to ``go
after'' the four million able-bodied adults without
dependents in the food stamp program.
``You say to them, `We will give you assistance, but come
to the office one day a week to do job search or community
service,'' ' Rector said. ``When Maine did that, they found
almost immediately that their caseload dropped 85 percent.''
Critics say such a change could endanger people like Keefe,
a veteran who has been unable to find a job after injuring
his wrist on the job at a plow factory in Rockland, Maine. As
a result, Keefe now is medically unable to lift more than 25
pounds--which disqualifies him from other work in
manufacturing.
The Navy veteran was one of several thousand former food
stamp recipients who lost benefits when Maine, in 2015,
declined to renew its waiver and reinstated statewide work
requirements. He has spent much of the last year living in a
tent.
``I don't wanna worry no one,'' said Keefe, who recently
testified to Maine's Committee on Health and Human Services
about the impact the work requirement had on him. But, he
added: ``I hope they understand that people fall through the
cracks.''
The Trump administration is considering other changes to
SNAP. While details remain sparse, Mulvaney said the federal
government would be asking states to share in the costs for
the food stamps program, through a phased-in ``state match''
so they have a ``little more skin in the game.''
``We believe in, the social safety net. We absolutely do,''
Mulvaney said. ``What we've done is not to try and remove the
safety net for folks who need it, but to try and figure out
if there's folks who don't need it that need to be back in
the workforce.''
Suspending employment waivers would hit hard in areas with
high unemployment such as southern and central California,
where the unemployment rate can spike as high as 19 percent,
as well as cities such as Detroit and Scranton, Pa., where
joblessness remains rampant. The change would also hit hard
in large portions of New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Georgia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Idaho and Michigan.
``It's unconscionable, cruel and ineffective,'' said Josh
Protas, the vice president of public policy at MAZON, a
national anti-hunger organization. ``I'm honestly not sure
what their goal is.''
Critics say the changes in unemployment waivers would be
devastating for Native American families living on
reservations in North and South Dakota, Arizona and Montana
where there is chronic poverty and high unemployment.
``The President's budget proposal will force kids in rural
America to go hungry while wasting billions of taxpayer
dollars on misplaced priorities like a wall that won't keep
us safe,'' said Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), in a statement to
the Post. ``Parents in Montana and across Indian Country
should not have to choose between food for their tables, gas
for their cars, and shoes for their kids.''
The number of Americans on SNAP remains high, however. In
2016, 44 million Americans receive the benefits, compared to
just 28 million people in 2008.
``They have not come down like we would expect them to
do,'' Mulvaney said. ``That raises a very valid question: Are
there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?''
Anti-hunger advocates argue that, generally speaking, there
are not. Because SNAP benefits decrease gradually with
increased income, there is no incentive for people to avoid
work to get benefits--a phenomenon economists call the
``welfare cliff.'' And benefits are too small for people to
subsist on them without working: The average food stamp
benefit was $465 a month for a family of four in 2015. Most
people are on the program for between seven and nine months
on average.
``The notion that people would prefer not to work to get
that benefit, give me a break,'' said U.S. Representative Jim
McGovern, (D-Mass.) a longtime anti-hunger advocate. ``This
is a lousy and rotten thing to do to poor people. They look
at SNAP as an ATM to pay for their other priorities.''
Additionally, three quarters of households using SNAP
contain children, seniors, or people with disabilities, said
Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits
Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Without SNAP, the
country would have had 3 to 4.5 million more people in
poverty during the recession, she said.
More than a quarter of able-bodied adults without
dependents on SNAP do not have a high school diploma, Waxman
said; another 57 percent don't have college degrees--putting
them at a disadvantage when it comes to finding work.
A number are also veterans, young adults aging out of the
foster care system, and felons recently released from jail.
SNAP recipients who cannot find work, for these or other
reasons, are supposed to attend job training programs--but
they're not widely available because of lack of funding.
``This is the trick. On the one hand, you want people to do
something, when in fact a lot of folks may not realistically
be able to find a job,'' Waxman said. ``Most states don't
want to put the money in. This is a dilemma that we're in.''
The evidence that stricter work requirements actually cause
people to get jobs is mixed, at best. In Kansas, which
reinstated the requirements in October 2014, 40 percent of
unemployed adults were still unemployed a year after being
kicked off SNAP. Among former SNAP participants who lost
benefits, the average annual income was only $5,562,
according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, a
right-wing think tank based in Florida.
Progress has also been hotly debated in Maine, a state that
conservatives regularly hold up as evidence that stricter
work-requirements are effective. When the state dropped its
waiver in 2015, the number of unemployed adults in the
program immediately fell by nearly 80 percent.
But a May 2016 report by the state found that nearly 60
percent of those affected individuals did not report any
income in the year after they left the program--suggesting
they were still unemployed or underemployed a year later.
On the national level, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow who
focuses on social welfare issues at the Cato Institute, a
libertarian think tank, said he doesn't think similar
mandates will have a huge impact on moving large numbers of
recipients into employment or result in significant budget
savings. Most SNAP recipients who can work are already
working, and many of those who are not meet one of the
various exemptions such as being disabled.
``It's making a statement that Republicans think people who
are on public assistance should be doing all they can to get
off,'' Tanner said, ``and that means working whenever
possible.''
McGovern, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, said
he was surprised to learn about the White House proposal
given Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's testimony before
the committee last week saying he did not favor any major
changes to the food stamps program.
``It's been a very important, effective Program,'' Perdue
said, according to a recording of the hearing. ``As far as
I'm concerned we have no proposed changes. You don't try to
fix things that aren't broken.''
The Trump administration is advocating other ``fixes'' to
the safety net, as well. The budget will also propose
requiring people to have a Social Security number to collect
tax credits. Mulvaney said it is unfair that taxpayers
support immigrants working illegally in this country.
``How do I go to somebody who pays their taxes and say,
'Look, I want you to give this earned income tax credit to
somebody who is working here illegally? That's not
defensible,'' Mulvaney said.
Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, said he also hopes
Trump will prioritize work requirements for those receiving
housing subsidies. Mulvaney did not address that on Monday.
[[Page H4157]]
Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing
Coalition, said the majority of Americans receiving housing
subsidies are elderly, disabled or already include someone
who works. Of the remaining households, nearly half include a
preschool child or an older child or adult with a disability
who needs the supervision of a caregiver.
Establishing work requirements for the remaining six
percent of households who are `work able' but not employed
would require state and local housing agencies already facing
funding shortfalls to establish cumbersome monitoring and
enforcement systems for a very narrow segment of rental
assistance recipients, she said.
``This is neither cost effective nor a solution to the very
real issue of poverty impacting millions of families living
in subsidized housing or in need,'' Yentel said in a
statement to the Post.
Correction: This story incorrectly stated the average
annual income for SNAP participants in Kansas who had lost
and then found jobs was $5,562. That figure applied to all
SNAP participants who had lost the benefit.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia suggests that
we all take a mission trip around the world to see hunger and see how
lucky we are here in the United States.
Let me tell the gentleman, you don't have to go halfway around the
world to see hunger. I can take you halfway down the block, and you can
see hunger right here in our Nation's capital and in every
congressional district in this country.
There are over 41 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure
in this country. We are the richest country in the history of the
world. We all should be ashamed. We ought to do something about it, and
this farm bill makes hunger worse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a distinguished member of the Agriculture
Committee.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would posit to my colleague across the aisle who said that we are
trying to pit farm producers against food recipients, I believe that it
is this bill that has done that.
We have worked in a bipartisan manner for, I understand, years before
this bill was put through without being discussed, without the hearings
on both sides of the aisle.
I try to think about what it would have meant to impose the massive
system of new SNAP requirements under the bill during the time
immediately after the islands were hit by two Category 5 hurricanes.
How would families submit their monthly paperwork? How would they go to
jobs at businesses that were shut down? How would job slots be provided
when localities must focus on providing receipts?
There is no accommodation for disaster-impacted areas in this bill.
And if the majority did not think to exempt out these communities, what
else was overlooked in terms of reasonable standards?
Unfortunately, we didn't have the opportunity to work with the
majority to get answers to such key questions before this bill was
unveiled and rushed to the floor.
This doesn't add any help to farmers facing record-low income and
commodity prices or hardships due to trade retaliation, as my colleague
from Illinois discussed earlier. It does not support farmer mental
health, appropriate funding for broadband, or tackling the opioid
epidemic.
This bill cuts hundreds of millions out of rural development and
energy initiatives and falls short on assisting beginning, underserved,
and veteran farmers. Why? Because it is not a bipartisan bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague has gone through some really challenging times in her
community, and this Chamber has stood with her in those times. She has
been a great advocate for her community in the face of some really
extraordinary disasters.
We can make accusations on this floor all we like, but we could also
spend some time bragging about those things that bring us together.
There are already disaster provisions in law--disaster provisions that
provide specifically disaster SNAP, for example, when communities are
so hard-hit. We do have these conversations, we do have these concerns
for one another and our communities, and we do work together to address
those concerns.
We are not always successful, Mr. Speaker, but I promise you we are
less successful when we don't work together than when we do.
My understanding--I don't sit on the Agriculture Committee, but my
friends across the aisle do--is that not a single Democratic amendment
was offered in committee.
It is my understanding--and, again, I don't sit on the committee. I
don't mind being corrected. I won't be embarrassed at all to have the
Record corrected. But my understanding is there were 5 hours of markup
in the Agriculture Committee, and not one idea for improving the bill
was offered.
Now, that is a legitimate, strategic position to take if folks want
to take it, Mr. Speaker. I just don't understand it as someone who
wants to get the job done and make a difference in a collaborative way
on behalf of the American people.
This bill is getting better every single day. It has gotten better
through every conversation. As you heard my friend from Washington say
in his opening statement, so many farmers with real-world experience--
we heard yesterday from Members who have real-world labor and workforce
development experience. This bill is getting better every time.
If we support the rule that we are discussing at this time, Mr.
Speaker, it will make 31 additional amendments in order so that we can
improve the bill even further.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to think of a response to
the gentleman from Georgia, who is trying to defend the process in the
Agriculture Committee as that somehow, with this bipartisan process,
Democrats didn't want to participate.
But you know what? It is just not worth it. We have been explaining
it over and over and over again. This process is indefensible. It
really makes a mockery of the Agriculture Committee, and it makes a
mockery of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege to serve on the
Agriculture Committee, but, given the comments of the gentleman there,
I would suggest as an amendment that, since this bill is about work, we
have work for 12-year-olds. Maybe boys could be shoeshine boys and the
girls could be shampoo girls at the beauty salon so that they can help
subsidize families.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that is appropriate for
this discussion: ``If you aren't at the table, you are on the menu.''
And children are definitely on the menu and at the tender mercies of
the job market.
This bill will cut access not only for SNAP but kids who go to school
every day. This means in my State there will be 23,000 kids who will
not get school lunch and breakfast because of this bill.
I am going to turn in, Mr. Speaker, some of the stories of people in
my district who need SNAP, real people, single people like Jana, who
has worked on a job for 11 years, lost her job, and has been looking
for work for 3 months and couldn't find it.
I would ask that we reject this bill for people who need SNAP to
survive. This bill is not about work. It is about taking food out of
the mouths of babes.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from
Georgia: Do you have any speakers over there or anybody who wants to
talk about this bill? Because we have a ton, and we just want to----
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. It is an inquiry. I don't want to take it on my time.
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to answer the inquiry, or we could just
leave it as an inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. As long as it doesn't come out of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Georgia, but it is not coming out of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we do have additional speakers remaining,
and, of course, if we make this rule in
[[Page H4158]]
order, if we pass this rule, we will have 31 different amendments and
speakers coming down on each one of those as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I am just taking note of all of the
excitement on your side of the aisle on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Mr. McGovern
for yielding me the time and doing such a wonderful job on a very
challenging bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the
current version of the farm bill. There are many reasons why--among
them, the unrealistic challenges to food assistance programs that will
have a big negative impact on my State in Maine.
What I want to focus on in my limited time is how much this
legislation does a disservice to the farmers in rural communities we
represent.
The public is very clear. They want greater access to healthy,
locally grown food. They want more of it grown organically, and they
want to support local farmers in rural economies. But Federal policy is
way behind the times, and this legislation would make it much worse.
Farmers aren't ignoring the trends that consumers are asking us for.
They are capitalizing on them. In my State, the changing market and the
demand for locally grown and organic food has reinvigorated the State's
agriculture economy.
Josh Girard, who is pictured here, is one of those farmers. After
earning a master's degree, working abroad in the Peace Corps, and
apprenticing at local farms, Josh decided to return to his hometown to
start his own farm.
The small sources of Federal support available to farmers like Josh
pale in comparison to what commodity farmers receive, but it can make
all of the difference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poliquin). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Maine.
Ms. PINGREE. For instance, Josh uses the Organic Certification Cost
Share Programs to help cover the cost of certification, which helps him
get more for his product. The funding for this and many other programs
is endangered in this farm bill.
Over the next 5 years, consumers will continue to change their buying
habits in our food system. The question is whether the Federal
Government would make good policy to help farmers like Josh.
Ask anyone in this Chamber if they support rural America, and they
will say, yes, absolutely. So I ask that we put our money where our
mouths are.
We should send the message to those keeping our farming communities
alive that we believe in their potential, we value their service, and
we will help them succeed by voting down this terribly partisan
legislation and start over on making a good bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) talked about how we are
literally taking the food away from children. I want to make it clear
to my colleagues, there should be no mistake: This bill is going to
hurt kids.
First, it cuts 1 million people off of benefits through categorical
eligibility challenges alone. These people are working families with
kids. And once these kids lose their SNAP benefits, CBO, the
nonpartisan group of experts that we rely on, expects 265,000 children
will lose access to free school meals.
I ask my colleagues: Is that what you want out of a farm bill? We can
do so much better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Georgia is a rural State, like so many jurisdictions represented in
this Chamber. Sometimes you have a big city in one part of the State
and the rest of the State is rural. The conversations we have in
Georgia are often not Republicans against Democrats politically; it is
Atlanta against the rest of the State politically.
Folks often don't connect the dots between the food that they are
buying on the shelf at Kroger being directly related to whether or not
farmers are producing that food in the field.
We have made huge strides in terms of trying to bring more fresh
produce not just into our school systems but into our local farmers
markets, huge strides into making sure that electronic benefits aren't
just able to be used at the local convenience store but are able to be
used in farmers markets so that higher quality produce can end up on
families' tables.
{time} 1315
Again, Mr. Speaker, we can find disagreement in every bill that comes
to the floor, but we can also find progress. There is a lot of progress
in this bill. We will support this rule, we will get to the underlying
bill, and we will spend the rest of the day discussing exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill which, much
like the Republicans' tax measure, comforts the comfortable and
afflicts the afflicted. It will have devastating impacts on SNAP
recipients across the Nation, including one in seven in Nevada who are
on this program. It will take away food assistance from some of our
most vulnerable: young children, seniors, and the disabled. It will
also force families to jump through extra hoops in order to access
other needed benefits like assistance with their electricity bills.
We can and should be doing more to lift families out of poverty and
end hunger in the United States. Shamefully, this bill does just the
opposite.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to
this cruel and mean-spirited farm bill, a farm bill that will leave
working families and our children out in the cold.
The farm bill we are debating today cuts $23 billion from SNAP, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That would leave 2 million
Americans without the support that they need to put food on the table.
Mr. Speaker, I represent both rural and urban, from Birmingham to the
Black Belt of Alabama, and I can say definitely that every community in
my district will be worse off under this bill.
For children and working families in my district, SNAP means the
difference between a hot meal or going to bed hungry. For farmers and
grocery stores in my district, SNAP is an investment in our food system
that creates 50,000 agricultural jobs across the country.
After the Republicans have shoved down a tax bill that gives the cuts
to the wealthiest Americans and adds $2 trillion to our deficit, they
now want to cut the benefits for hungry children and working families.
I believe this is morally wrong. You see, Mr. Speaker, the face of
SNAP in my district is not the welfare mother trying to get over. No.
The face of SNAP in my district--where 70 percent of the people who are
beneficiaries in my district are children under the age of 17 years
old--the face of SNAP in America are needy children.
We must and can do better. I am going to vote ``no,'' and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we feel very passionately about issues on this floor. I
want to give my colleague from Alabama an opportunity to retract the
accusation that this is a mean-spirited and cruel bill. I know the men
and women who serve on the Agriculture Committee, and they don't have a
mean-spirited or cruel bone in their body. They care about farmers, and
they care about families.
We can argue about whether or not if you are a working aged, able-
bodied, childless man in this country whether or not we ought to try to
get you a job while you are collecting Federal benefits. We can talk
about that. I don't
[[Page H4159]]
think that is mean-spirited at all. I don't think that is cruel at all.
I think that is exactly what we ought to be doing to lift families up
out of poverty.
But I would say to my colleagues with their passion--which I know is
heartfelt--feeding hungry children is a shared priority, and we see
that every single day in the bills that are passed here; and we do
damage to this institution and we do damage to the very honest and
needed debates we have in this Chamber when we characterize one another
in ways that we know are not accurate.
I know the men and women on the Agriculture Committee. I know why
they chose to serve on that committee. I believe in the work they are
doing. I regret that we are having this disagreement today, but we
don't need to question each other's motives or integrity in order to
make this debate of value.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill because
it is a missed opportunity. I had offered numerous, fiscally
responsible reform amendments to improve the bill, all of which were
rejected last night.
For instance, why is a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of
over $500,000 a year still receiving taxpayer subsidies under this
bill? Why can't we at least track the crop insurance premium subsidy
payments to the individual entities?
Right now, that is currently prohibited under the bill. That is not
right. The American taxpayer deserves to see how their tax dollars are
being run.
Why are we eliminating the entire Conservation Stewardship Program
when three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding
assistance today are denied because of inadequacy of funds?
This farm bill should be about helping our family farmers succeed,
not a sop to powerful special interests here in Washington. That is why
this is a missed opportunity.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who is one of my classmates in the class of
2011. We were once Budget Committee mates together back in the day.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the 2018 farm
bill.
Missouri farmers work hard every day to feed the world, and they need
the certainty that this legislation provides. This bill strengthens
safeguards for our food supply and improves public-private risk
management programs that are vital to American agriculture.
In addition, the farm bill makes significant investments in broadband
infrastructure in rural America by setting a minimum speed for Federal
investment.
This bill contains historic improvements to SNAP which helps
recipients break the cycle of poverty by improving work opportunities
for able-bodied adults receiving Federal nutrition assistance. This
bill also promotes work and individual success while empowering those
dependent on government assistance.
These reforms will reduce unemployment and instill a sense of pride
and work ethic by helping people move from dependency to independence
and self-sufficiency. These are commonsense improvements that we are
discussing today.
The 2018 farm bill is a responsible and effective piece of
legislation which maintains safety net programs in crop insurance for
America's farmers while making investments in job training programs to
lift those in need out of poverty.
This bill has my full support, and I thank and commend Chairman
Conaway for his hard work on moving this legislation forward.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak against an amendment included in this
rule, the Foxx-Davis amendment, in defense of the 2,300 factory workers
and 900 family farmers who grow sugar beets in my community.
The sugar program in this country supports family farmers. The
company that is formed is a co-op formed by local family-owned growers
who come together, and all they ask for is a fair chance to compete, to
grow their high quality product, and to not have to compete with state-
subsidized foreign sugar that is dumped if we don't have a program that
protects our local growers.
The question is really simple. It comes down to marginally increasing
the profits of large corporations or supporting family farmers who
support their families by growing high quality sugar beets and
sugarcane in this country.
This is a program that does not cost the taxpayers a dime according
to CBO.
It comes down to a simple question: Are we going to support our own
growers, or are we going to support foreign-produced sugar and
moderately, if at all, increase the profits of large companies?
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. He actually
spent a good deal of his time just the other day in a Budget Committee
hearing trying to help get us some bipartisan solutions.
He got grilled by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Everybody
wanted their ounce of Michigan flesh in that day. But at the end of
that conversation--and I don't say this flippantly--I felt more
optimistic about our coming together and doing some very difficult
infrastructure investments in this country than I did when I walked
into that room.
Those things don't happen without people investing the kind of time
and energy that Representative Kildee has invested over his career. I
want to tell the gentleman how much I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many
more speakers he has remaining.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend I am prepared to
close when he is.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit where credit is due. This majority
can't balance a budget; they can't even pass a budget. They can't fund
the government without first shutting it down. They are so busy cozying
up to the big banks and passing tax cuts for the wealthy that they
ignore virtually every major issue facing our Nation. Right now as we
speak, this Republican majority is trying to jam through a farm bill
that won't even help most farmers.
But the one thing this Republican majority is incredibly good at, and
the one thing that they do with ruthless efficiency is stick it to poor
people. This majority is Robin Hood in reverse. They are master
legislators for the megawealthy. They might want this Chamber to look
out solely for those at the top, giving them more tax breaks, making it
easier for them to pollute our planet and systematically attacking the
safeguards we put in place to stop another financial collapse, but
while they work with unflagging, unshakeable, and dogged determination
to give a helping hand to the fat cats, they tell those struggling to
get by and those begging for an opportunity and a living wage that they
should just work harder.
Never mind that they didn't grow up in nice neighborhoods or in a
stable home with good nutrition and a quality education. Maybe they
started out in life having to play catchup. Maybe they need just a
little help from the Government to make the American Dream a reality in
their life. Or maybe they were born with advantages but have fallen on
hard times and they need a little bit of help.
I am standing here today--Democrats are standing here today--giving a
voice to our workers, the middle class, and those trying to break into
the middle class. If my Republican friends actually listened to their
voices, they would join us and vote against this monstrosity of a bill
that attacks working American citizens and takes lunch money away from
children.
It is disgusting, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and
I urge all of you--no, I plead with all of you--to vote ``no'' on this
bill.
[[Page H4160]]
I grew up in a family where helping those who were struggling was the
right thing to do, the decent thing to do. Please send this bill back
to committee. Surely we can do better. Let's demonstrate to the
American people that we are here to help, that we care, and that we are
decent.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia commented that we are all so
emotional on this side of the aisle when we are debating this issue.
You are damn right we are. We are emotional. We are angry. We are
frustrated because people are going to be hurt.
Mr. Speaker, if you have ever met a hungry child, it should break
your heart, and there are millions and millions in this country who are
hungry. We are the greatest country in the history of the world and the
richest country in the history of the world, and tens of millions of
our fellow citizens are food insecure or hungry.
Why isn't that a priority? Why isn't that a bigger priority than
another tax cut for a big corporation? I know my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle deep down inside care about those who suffer in
this country. Here is an opportunity to prove it. Let's do a farm bill
that actually doesn't make hunger worse in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am not even asking you to eliminate hunger, although I
wish that were a priority. I am just saying: don't make it worse. This
bill will throw millions of people off of a food benefit, and millions
of children will be impacted.
Mr. Speaker, they are not just people who aren't working. You know
better than that. Many of these people are working families, people who
are working hard but can't make ends meet. You are taking away a food
benefit. What is wrong with this institution? We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this rule, and vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends on the Agriculture Committee
for the work they did on this bill. It is not easy to do big pieces of
legislation. We do a farm bill every 5 years. It is always a hard thing
to do, and my friends on the Agriculture Committee have taken the
slings and arrows. You have heard the accusations that have been made
just here on the floor today.
The unemployment rate in this country, Mr. Speaker, is as low as it
has ever been in my lifetime, and the number of childless, working-age
men who are sitting it out is as high as it has ever been in my
lifetime.
We can argue about how to care about people more, we can argue about
how to love people more, but I will tell you, helping someone to find a
job matters.
Historically, Mr. Speaker, it is one of those things we agree on. For
whatever reason, we have made it the topic of something we are going to
pretend to disagree on today.
There are more jobs available in this country than ever before. I
think we owe it to families that haven't been able to connect
themselves with that job market to help them to do better.
Mr. Speaker, so often, we talk about all the lawyers in Congress, all
the lawyers who are bureaucrats, all the folks who are working on
policy that they just don't understand. I want to close with where my
colleague from Washington State began. Of course, he is a former
agriculture commissioner from Washington State. He said this.
He said he is not the only farmer in this House. There are 20
farmers, ranchers, and producers serving here in the people's House: an
almond farmer from central California, a blueberry farmer from Maine, a
rancher from South Dakota, a cattleman from Kentucky, a rice farmer
from Minnesota, and a hops farmer from the Yakima Valley in Washington
State.
Mr. Speaker, this body really does reflect working Americans, folks
out there trying to be the breadbasket to the world, trying to put
fresh produce on the shelves for every American family to benefit from.
This bill continues our commitment to serving the hungry, and it
continues our commitment to being the finest agricultural production
nation that this planet has ever seen.
Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Let's consider some amendments to make
this bill even better, and then let's send it to the Senate and give
the American people a bill they can be proud of.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule
governing debate, and the underlying bill, regarding H.R.2, the so-
called ``Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018,'' the House
Republicans' failed attempt to produce a Farm Bill that is good for
America.
A more fitting name for this terrible and bitter legislative pill
would be the ``Let Poor Families and Children Starve so Billionaires
Can Get Fatter Act.''
Going back to 1962, beginning with Senators Hubert Humphrey, Bob
Dole, and George McGovern, Farm Bills have always attracted bipartisan
support and engendered an enduring alliance between urban and rural
legislators in the common cause of ensuring livable incomes for farm
families and an affordable and nutritious food supply.
With this purely partisan bill, House Republicans have turned their
back on this 56 year heritage.
Mr. Speaker, St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian, said:
``Without justice, what else is the state but a gang of robbers?''
There is no justice in this Farm Bill, but there is harm--lots of
it--inflicted on the most vulnerable, so much so that many people are
saying that the House Republican majority has produced a bill that is
worthy of a gang of robbers.
I oppose this rule and underlying legislation for several reasons but
most of all because of its abject cruelty to American's most vulnerable
families and children.
H.R. 2 slashes $23 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (``SNAP''), a lifeline depended upon by millions of families
and children to provide for their daily nutrition needs.
But who among us can say they are truly surprised?
Since taking office sixteen months ago, the President has made
abundantly clear his indifference to the most vulnerable citizens in
society.
And he has been aided in his endeavors by a feckless House Republican
majority.
The President began his presidency with a concerted and determined
push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a law which has helped over 17
million individuals gain health insurance; reduced the uninsured rate
by 40 percent and, provided 89 percent of Americans with the security
and peace of mind that comes with access to affordable quality
healthcare.
When that effort failed, the President next turned his efforts to
passing the massive Trump-GOP Tax Scam, which slashed taxes for the top
one percent and multi-national corporations, but the negative
consequences of which the Trump-GOP Tax Scam have been devastating for
the average American.
The GOP Tax Scam has now been revealed not to generate broad-based
economic growth but instead to create annual trillion dollar deficits
as far as the eye can see.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to be honest about creating an environment
where individuals have an opportunity to emerge from poverty
conditions, there must be access to nutritious food.
SNAP is a critical component to providing food security to lower-
income Americans.
SNAP sets children up for success.
Children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and are more likely to
graduate from high school, helping to break the cycle of poverty and
build a stronger economy in the long term.
SNAP is temporary.
The average family spends just ten months on SNAP, receiving
assistance only during difficult times.
(SNAP is critical for poor and working families.
Most participate in SNAP when they are between jobs.
Among households with at least one working-age non-disabled adult
roughly 8o percent of SNAP households work in the year before or the
year after receiving SNAP.
Close to two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or
disabled.
The vast majority of those who are required to work, do work.
The average per person benefit is $132 per month, or about$1.60 per
meal.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to become law, it would cut $23
billion from SNAP and would kick one million households off the
program.
That means 83,000 Texas families would see their benefits cut,
impacting more than 96,000 individuals.
In Texas, over half of all SNAP beneficiaries live below the poverty
line so cutting access to SNAP would be devastating.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we not increase food security for
the least vulnerable among us.
[[Page H4161]]
If our children are not adequately and safely housed, they are not
protected from life's crueler elements.
If they are not fed, they lack nourishment and preparation for school
and all its challenges.
Mothers know this and their children know this.
Everyone knows this, with the apparent exception of the President and
House Republicans.
The House Republicans' eagerness to sacrifice poor and working
families and children by cutting SNAP and other food assistance
programs for up to 23 million people by $23 billion is an accurate
reflection of their priorities and values, which favor tax cuts for
multinational corporation and the top 1 percent at the expense of the
poor and working class and those striving to enter the middle class.
Mr. Speaker, there are other major insults, injuries, and cruelties
inflicted on working families by this callous legislation.
This so-called Farm Bill changes SNAP from a food program to a work
program by imposing new draconian work requirements on adult SNAP
participants between 18 and 59 years old, requiring documentation
showing 20 hours per week of work or participation in a job training
program.
The changes include severe, harsh penalties if the paperwork is not
filed on time, ignoring the reality of low-wage work, which is plagued
by unstable, uncertain work schedules, unpredictable hours, and few
benefits like paid sick or family leave.
This mean-spirited legislation threatens free school meals for
265,000 children and SNAP eligibility for 400,000 households by
eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which allows
states flexibility to link their social service programs to SNAP.
The bill also severs the connection between SNAP and Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps families pay their
energy utilities, adversely impacting working families and people with
disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, this wretched legislation is an equal-opportunity
catastrophe because it also inflicts serious damage on farm families
and rural America at a time of great challenge and economic
uncertainty.
Farm prices are plummeting amid the self-inflicted damage of
President Trump's tariffs yet this bill instead of providing relief
exacerbates the economic and social pain in rural America by killing
good-paying rural jobs, cutting a gaping hole in the critical farmer
safety net and shifting opportunity away from America's small towns
with cuts to vital rural development, sustainable conservation, and
energy initiatives.
Inexplicably, H.R. 2 fails to address the 52 percent decline in farm
income and eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, the
nation's largest working lands conservation program, by merging it with
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, resulting in $800 million
less for investments in preserving working lands and sustainable farm
practices.
The legislation hurts rural families in several additional ways by:
Failing to increase funding for USDA's trade assistance programs that
help farmers stay globally competitive through initiatives that help to
develop and expand their business in overseas markets;
Abolishing the entire Energy Title, resulting in lost investments in
jobs of the future in renewable energy and biofuels;
Adding onerous fees to rural development guaranteed loans;
Curtailing broadband assistance in remote areas by adding
administrative burdens and fails to boost USDA's telemedicine
initiatives that help combat opioid abuse in rural America;
Underfunding the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program,
which provides funding to organizations that educate, mentor and
provide technical assistance for new and veteran farmers; and
Betraying the next generation of farm and food leaders by failing to
provide mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grant
institutions.
This so-called Farm Bill is so bad in so many ways to so many people
that it is little wonder that it is strongly opposed by leading
organizations and associations from all sides of the political
spectrum, including: National Farmers Union, National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition, Environmental Working Group, National Young
Farmers Coalition, Union of Concerned Scientists, Agriculture Energy
Coalition, American Biogas Association, Institute for Agriculture &
Trade Policy, AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, AFSCME, Alliance
for Retired Americans, American Psychological Association, Center for
Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, Child
Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human
Needs, Every Child Matters, Families USA, Feeding America, First Focus
Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center, Hispanic
Federation, Lutheran Services in America, MAZON: A Jewish Response to
Hunger, Meals on Wheels America, MomsRising, NAACP, National Consumers
League, National Council on Aging, National Employment Law Project,
National PTA, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NOW,
Partnership for America's Children, Sargent Shriver National Center on
Poverty Law, SEIU, Share Our Strength, UnidosUS, YWCA USA, Heritage
Foundation, R Street Institute, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
I urge all Members to join me in voting to reject the rule and this
cruel, heartless legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows
An amendment to H. Res. 900 offered by Mr. McGovern
On p. 2, line 2, insert ``The amendment specified in
section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.'' after
``purposes.''
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
`Add at the end the following:
Subtitle H Protections From Retaliatory Tariffs
SEC. 11801. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not take
effect until the President transmits a certification to
Congress that the following Administration efforts will not
result in adverse trade or tariff impacts against U.S.
farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers:
(1) the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement;
(2) the application of tariffs and/or quotas on steel and
aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act
of 1962;
(3) any enforcement action taken pursuant to the
investigation into China's acts, policies, and practices
related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and
innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; and
(4) the application of global safeguard tariffs on imports
of large residential washing machines and solar cells and
modules under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.''
____
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
[[Page H4162]]
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:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 189, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
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
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
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--189
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
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
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
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.
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
McNerney
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
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Beyer
Blackburn
Brown (MD)
DeGette
Gohmert
Labrador
Polis
Rogers (KY)
Walz
Webster (FL)
{time} 1356
Ms. TSONGAS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 191]
AYES--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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
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
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
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
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
[[Page H4163]]
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
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
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
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
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
McNerney
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
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Beyer
Black
Blackburn
Brown (MD)
DeGette
Gohmert
Labrador
Polis
Rogers (KY)
Walz
Webster (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1404
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.
____________________