[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4173-H4188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). Pursuant to House Resolution 
900 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) kindly resume the chair.

                              {time}  1515


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Weber of 
Texas (Acting Chair) in the chair.

[[Page H4174]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 20 printed in part C of House Report 115-677 offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 900, no further amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute referred to in House Resolution 
891 shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-679.
  Each such further amendment shall be considered 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.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Foxx

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1301 and insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 1301. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) Loan Rates.--Section 156 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272) is amended 
     by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(a) Sugarcane.--The Secretary shall make loans available 
     to processors of domestically grown sugarcane at a rate equal 
     to--
       ``(1) 18.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2018 
     crop year; and
       ``(2) 18.00 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2019 
     through 2023 crop years.
       ``(b) Sugar Beets.--The Secretary shall make loans 
     available to processors of domestically grown sugar beets at 
     a rate equal to 128.5 percent of the loan rate per pound of 
     raw cane sugar for the applicable crop year under subsection 
     (a) for each of the 2018 through 2023 crop years.''.
       (b) Avoiding Forfeitures While Ensuring Adequate Supplies 
     at Reasonable Prices.--Section 156(f) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(f)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``While 
     Ensuring Adequate Supplies at Reasonable Prices'' after 
     ``Forfeitures''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``ensure adequate 
     supplies of sugar at reasonable prices and'' after ``shall''.
       (c) Effective Period.--Section 156(i) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(i)) is amended by striking ``2018'' and inserting 
     ``2023''.

     SEC. 1302. FEEDSTOCK FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM FOR BIOENERGY 
                   PRODUCERS TERMINATION.

       Section 9010 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8110) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Termination.--The Secretary may not carry out the 
     feedstock flexibility program under subsection (b) for the 
     2019 or subsequent crops of eligible commodities.''.

     SEC. 1303. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF-RATE QUOTAS.

       Part VII of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa et seq.) is amended 
     to read as follows:

                           ``PART VII--SUGAR

     ``SEC. 359. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF-RATE QUOTAS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, at the beginning of fiscal year 2019 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter through the end of the effective period, the 
     Secretary shall establish the tariff-rate quotas for raw cane 
     sugar and refined sugar to provide adequate supplies of sugar 
     at reasonable prices, but at no less than the minimum level 
     necessary to comply with obligations under international 
     trade agreements that have been approved by Congress.
       ``(b) Adjustment Authority.--The Secretary shall adjust 
     tariff-rate quotas established under subsection (a) in such a 
     manner as to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that 
     stocks of raw cane and refined beet sugar are adequate 
     throughout the crop year to meet the needs of the 
     marketplace, including the efficient utilization of cane 
     refining capacity.
       ``(c) Transfer of Quota Shares.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that--
       ``(A) promote full use of the tariff-rate quotas for raw 
     cane sugar and refined sugar and ensure adequate supplies for 
     cane refiners in the United States;
       ``(B) provide that any country that has been allocated a 
     share of the quotas may temporarily transfer all or part of 
     the share to any other country that has also been allocated a 
     share of the quotas.
       ``(2) Transfers voluntary.--Any transfer under this 
     subsection shall be valid only pursuant to a voluntary 
     agreement between the transferor and the transferee, 
     consistent with procedures established by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Limitations on transfers with respect to fiscal 
     year.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any transfer under this subsection shall 
     be valid only for the duration of the fiscal year during 
     which the transfer is made.
       ``(B) Following fiscal year.--No transfer under this 
     subsection shall affect the share of the quota allocated to 
     the transferor or transferee for the following fiscal year.
       ``(d) Effective Period.--This section shall be effective 
     for fiscal years only through the 2023 crop year for 
     sugar.''.

       Strike section 6410.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague Mike Conaway and the 
other members of the Agriculture Committee for their work on the farm 
bill. I have every intention of voting for the bill and have stated 
that on many occasions.
  Having been working on a reauthorization of a major bill recently, I 
can certainly sympathize with the effort here and say that, overall, 
this bill is an improvement on past farm bills because it responds to 
the desperate need of work requirements for able-bodied people.
  However, there is another piece of this bill that has been around for 
a long time, 85 years, that is not corrected, is decidedly bad policy, 
and is long overdue to be corrected, and our amendment does that.
  This amendment is not new. In fact, this body has debated it in every 
farm bill for over a generation. The issue of which I speak is the 
issue with sugar and the need for reform of the way we treat sugar, 
which is different from all other commodity programs.
  It is the only program that provides both loan supports and supply 
management. Supply management is the ugly cousin of direct payments. It 
rewards inactivity.
  Americans are outraged when they hear tales of direct payments to 
farmers for not producing something. That same injustice--reward for 
inactivity, protection from competition--is what we find in the sugar 
program.
  Let's be crystal-clear about what the sugar program does. It puts the 
government in charge of deciding how much sugar will be produced in 
this country, which inflates the cost, and it guarantees the processing 
industry a base profit by giving them subsidized loans. We stopped 
these practices years ago for other commodities, and only sugar is left 
with this sweet deal.
  When the government gets into picking winners and losers, American 
jobs are at risk. The International Trade Commission has stated that 
for every job the sugar program protects we lose three manufacturing 
jobs. Congress should not be in the business of defending a program 
that is a bona fide job killer.
  This amendment has a broad coalition of support. Free market groups, 
economists, environmentalists, consumer groups, and manufacturers all 
support this amendment.
  Let me tell you about the other coalition. It is not very large. It 
is made up of 13 vertically integrated sugar processors. That is it. 
Our government is transferring wealth to these processors. It shifts 
cost onto our Nation's manufacturers and consumers by almost $4 billion 
annually.
  We are going to hear that the amendment subjects farmers to some new 
exposure to foreign imports. What they will fail to tell you is that, 
between our government's suspension agreements, import quotas, and 
tariffs, our government already regulates every single ounce of foreign 
sugar coming into our market. Will our amendment weaken the ability of 
the USDA to regulate these imports? Not in the slightest. We simply 
give USDA more flexibility.
  We are going to hear arguments about candy bars, candy companies, and 
lots of other distractions. But it is all brought up to shift your 
attention away from the very program we are here to debate, the sugar 
program.
  In reality, the sugar program hates sunshine. It hates getting the 
spotlight. But I am glad we are debating it here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4175]]

  

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in extreme opposition to Ms. Foxx's 
amendment.
  She singles out sugar, cuts its program back to where it was 33 years 
ago, and denigrates the hardworking men and women who are farmers. 
Those processors she mentioned are co-op-owned; they are owned by those 
hardworking farmers. There is no inactivity with respect to the sugar 
industry. She couldn't be more wrong or more disrespectful of them.
  Her amendment would not save the taxpayer one dime. Fifteen out of 
the last 16 years, the sugar program has worked. The reason we have not 
changed it over all those years is because it does work. If we were to 
move it under title I to treat it exactly the way the other commodities 
are treated, it would cost billions of taxpayer dollars. We don't want 
that, and the sugar industry is not asking for that.
  This amendment will not save the consumer one penny. These large 
sugar users, of whom I am a great customer, buy by the carload. When 
the price of sugar dropped to half of what it should have been in 2013 
as a result of Mexico cheating on the trade deal, they did not share 
that profit with anybody.
  Quite frankly, just to put it succinctly, if sugar was such a driving 
cost in the cost of all production and the cost to all the jobs that 
the gentlewoman mentioned, my diet soda would cost dramatically less 
than a sugar soda. They don't. They cost exactly the same. They still 
give this product away in restaurants.
  So, as we go about this issue, this is about protecting American jobs 
and American hardworking farmers from unfair, undue competition from 
around the world.
  We don't let other products come into this country at below the cost 
of production. We do it when we fight steel. We had a recent fight 
against Turkey over the imports of steel because it was below the cost 
of production. We would protect all other products that way. We just 
simply leave this one in place because it works year-in and year-out, 
except for the 1 year Mexico cheated. They admitted they cheated on the 
program, and that is when it cost the American taxpayers money.
  So it doesn't cost, it doesn't save taxpayer money, and it doesn't 
save consumers money. It is simply a windfall of some amount to the 
sugar buyers and users.
  I don't have a grudge against them at all. Like I said, I eat and 
drink their products. I am trying to defend American farmers from 
products being produced overseas by slave labor in some instances, 
child labor in other instances, standards under which we don't produce. 
It is dumped into these markets because those governments, unlike ours, 
have a direct payment to their farmers and producers to keep them in 
business.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I thank her for her 
leadership on this issue.
  This amendment is long overdue. The sugar program that currently 
exists has distorted the marketplace for too long. According to one 
estimate, it has driven up consumer prices by over $4 billion a year. 
And it is making it more difficult for us to negotiate greater market 
access in trade negotiations overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed that many of my fiscally 
responsible reform amendments were rejected late last night in the 
Rules Committee, such as:
  Why do multimillionaires and billionaires still qualify for 
agriculture subsidies under the current bill?
  Why do those earning over $500,000 in adjusted gross income get 
subsidies under this bill?
  Why are multiple people on the same farm receiving the same subsidies 
under this bill, from husbands to wives, to sons, to daughters, the 
nephews, the nieces, the cousins?
  Why can't we at least track where the crop insurance premium 
subsidies are going, which is currently prohibited under this bill?
  This legislation should be working for family farmers, not powerful 
special interests here in Washington. I fear it is a missed 
opportunity.
  This amendment at least introduces some modicum of reform, which is 
long overdue, in a program that has distorted the marketplace for too 
long.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to accept this amendment 
today.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is the ranking member of the powerful 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish my friends on the Ways and Means 
Committee would actually do something about the illegal subsidization 
that is going on in the sugar industry in the world instead of coming 
here and complaining about a program that actually works.
  I have the biggest sugar district in the country. The people who grow 
sugar in my district are small farmers. They use their own money to 
build the plant. It is probably 25 percent of the economy in the north 
part of my district.
  All this amendment would do is give these jobs and this market away 
to other countries that are subsidizing their people more than we are 
in the United States. And they are working these plants with child 
labor, slave labor, in these other places.
  Is that what you want to do? Give away our jobs to places where there 
are no environmental regulations?
  You go down to Brazil. They are making sugar out of sugarcane. They 
are burning it with gas. It goes right into the atmosphere. There is no 
EPA. There are no regulations whatsoever. They are putting this 
vinasse, which is like oil, right into the river.
  And we are going to get rid of an industry in the United States that 
is doing a good job? It is the lowest cost producer in the world, and 
we are going to give it up because other people are cheating?
  Now, people say that this thing costs money. It only cost money 1 
year, and the reason is because the Mexicans dumped in our market and 
our government didn't do anything about it. When we finally got the 
suspension agreement in place, then we were able to get this thing 
stabilized.
  So this is an amendment that is not needed. This is a program that 
works. The reason we have this program is to protect ourselves from all 
these other countries that are subsidizing their industries more than 
we are in the United States.
  We are the lowest cost producer in my district. We are the lowest 
cost producer of anyplace in the world. We can compete, but we can't 
compete against governments that are dumping money in and not following 
environmental regulations and not following child labor laws. We can't 
compete against that.
  So please vote down this amendment. It is something that is not 
necessary and is not needed.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, not my words, but the International Trade 
Commission says that for every job sugar protects, we lose three 
manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).

  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  I come here to the House floor as the son, grandson, and great-
grandson of farmers. I grew up working on a farm in rural Texas, and I 
strongly oppose Federal subsidies to agriculture in general and the 
sugar program in particular.
  Under the Federal sugar program, which dates back to the New Deal, 
domestic sugar prices are propped up via a Byzantine system of 
marketing, allotments, import quotas, price supports, and a loan 
guarantee program so bad it would make a Soviet commissar blush.
  This may be a sweet deal for sugar producers, but it is not a sweet 
deal for the auto mechanic in Mesquite, Texas; the store clerk in 
Mineola, Texas; or the teacher in Garland, Texas, that I represent in 
the Fifth District. Where is their government subsidy program?

[[Page H4176]]

  This is antijob. It is a food tax. It is income redistribution at its 
worst. And it is not commensurate with any free market principle I 
know.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I point out that over half of all U.S. 
sugar processing operations in the United States since 1980 have 
closed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, this is a farm policy. The farm policy is 
there to produce a policy so that the American farmers can go out and 
raise crops for the United States of America to continue to produce the 
highest quality, the most abundant, and the cheapest food produced in 
the world of any industrialized nation. That is why we have a farm 
policy.
  This amendment of Ms. Foxx goes after the American farmers for the 
betterment of multinational soda companies and candy companies, and the 
price of sugar won't go down. In my hometown, a 4-pound bag of sugar 
costs $2.64.
  I would ask every Member of Congress: How many constituents in your 
district have come up to you and pleaded for you to do something about 
the cost of sugar?

                              {time}  1530

  This is about the American farmer, not about candy companies and soda 
companies. It is misdirected. I oppose it and strongly advise everybody 
to vote against it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out the additional 
closed plants and jobs lost in the sugar growing industry.
  U.S.- and foreign-sweetened product manufacturers have announced 100 
plant openings, acquisitions, or expansions within the United States 
over that same timeframe.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support fair sugar 
policy.
  The sugar program represents a hidden tax on American businesses and 
consumers and is responsible for the loss of U.S. food manufacturing 
jobs.
  Each month, families go to the grocery store, and unbeknownst to 
them, the sugar in many of the products they buy is subject to a cost 
that is generally 30 to 40 percent higher than the world cost. Very 
few, if any, will ever know that a hidden sugar tax has been imposed 
upon them by the sugar program. This hidden tax totals at least $2.4 
billion a year for American consumers.
  There are more than 600,000 sugar-using industry jobs in our Nation, 
including thousands in Virginia's Sixth District. I want to stand up 
and be counted as an advocate for keeping those jobs in the United 
States.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment to 
help put an end to the hidden costs of the sugar program.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on both 
sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that that hidden tax 
that my colleagues are talking about will not be shared with the 
consumers. It has never been shared with the price of sugar. It goes 
down. It will simply shift those profits into multinational 
corporations that we are defending by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, as you may guess, I am a big fan of a 
good candy bar.
  In 1983, a candy bar cost 35 cents and had a cost of about 2 cents 
worth of sugar. Thirty-five years later, I am still a fan of candy 
bars. In 2018, that same candy bar costs $1.49--they are a little 
slimmer--and the cost of sugar is still 2 cents.
  United States retail sugar costs are the lowest in the world: 59 
cents a pound compared to 71 cents on the open market. The sugar 
program cost the taxpayers zero in the last 16 years.
  Rather than message about alleged conservative amendments, let's 
focus on addressing meaningful changes. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that there are lots of 
companies that use sugar and are behemoths. I represent a number of 
them in Portland, Oregon, that are confectioners, candy makers, and 
bakers who are concerned about this.
  In terms of the benefit, think about the 13 mega processors that the 
sugar program forces manufacturers to pay far more than they need. This 
is a $3 billion burden on the taxpayer.
  We have an opportunity here to deal with one other area. If we start 
getting the pricing right, there is another hidden tax in terms of the 
sugar system that we have, and that has been on the Florida Everglades.
  We have a $7.5 billion down payment because of the damage that has 
been inflicted on the Everglades by the massive cane sugar operation 
that has increased dramatically in the last 50 years, a cost that 
taxpayers will be footing and environmental costs to go with the burden 
on sugar-using industries.
  I strongly urge approval of the amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Republican 
chairman of the committee and the Democratic ranking member of this 
committee both oppose this amendment, for good reason.
  It is a simple question: Do we want to support local growers like the 
900 families that I represent who, collectively, through a co-op, own 
their processing facility?
  This notion of mega producers is really a story of 900 families that 
collectively bound together in a co-op to own the production facility 
to deal with the sugar that they, themselves, grow.
  This is a question of local growers or foreign-subsidized sugar using 
child labor. That is the simple question before us.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
will create some fairness for more than 600,000 workers across our 
country who are in small businesses and manufacturing facilities that 
use sugar as an ingredient in the products they make. Over 91,000 
of those jobs and 2,300 of those businesses are in my home State of 
California.

  This amendment would make the sugar program fairer for taxpayers, 
manufacturers, and American consumers. By removing the many unnecessary 
government interventions that have kept sugar prices excessively high, 
manufacturers will create jobs and American consumers will no longer be 
on the hook for $4 billion per year in hidden sugar costs.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. is the third largest importer of 
sugar in the world, and virtually all of that comes in duty free.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, not long ago, President Trump successfully 
negotiated an agreement with Mexico to stop them from dumping illegally 
subsidized sugar onto the U.S. market. This amendment would undo the 
President's good work by reopening the floodgates to other foreign 
countries to send us their subsidized sugar at below their costs of 
production, further depressing the prices that my farmers receive.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, when other militaries 
challenge the United States' military might, we invest more dollars, 
just like we did a few months ago in our military.
  When the Panama Canal was widened and deepened, we invested more 
dollars in our ports so we would remain competitive. When other 
countries have lowered tax rates, we lower ours to

[[Page H4177]]

make sure that we remain competitive and we can defend our folks.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent thousands of farmers from Louisiana who 
depend upon this crop. If we pass this amendment, the precedent that it 
sets rolling into other types of crops will devastate American farmers.
  This amendment is a flawed amendment. It is going to undermine our 
agriculture industry across the United States. I urge opposition.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not only about being 
against a Soviet-style regime and the quotas and a variety of other 
things that come with it, but this amendment is, hopefully, about 
common sense.
  The one thing we don't want to subsidize are the things that cause us 
problems. We are now spending more than a quarter of a trillion dollars 
in healthcare costs as type 2 diabetes has ballooned. To give you the 
exact number, $327 billion a year is spent on type 2 diabetes.
  So the idea of saying let's subsidize our sugar so that we can then 
spend more on healthcare is something that needs to be looked at.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. It is interesting to listen to the various arguments here, 
but certainly there is unfair competition, if you will--it is hard to 
even call it competition--overseas, but we have unfair trade practices. 
Sugar policy here helps us defend ourselves.
  These are manufacturing jobs in western Nebraska that utilize, very 
responsibly, our natural resources, and I think it is only reasonable 
to continue a policy that is not generally a cost to taxpayers.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, the current U.S. sugar program represents an 
anti-free market scheme that imposes a massive hidden tax on both 
American businesses and consumers for the benefit of a small, 
concentrated group of special interests.
  People say, well, we have got the safest, cheapest food source in the 
world in the United States. It is cheap because we are paying for it 
with our taxes. These are Soviet-style policies imposing significant, 
unnecessary costs on the domestic food manufacturing industry and the 
consumer.
  Policies have imposed $2.4 billion to $4 billion worth of losses to 
sugar users across the Nation. These industries provide jobs to 600,000 
Americans, including 40,000 Pennsylvanians.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in solidarity with 
south Texas sugar and in opposition to the Foxx-Davis amendment.
  In deep south Texas, we are proud of our sugar corporation, our sugar 
mill, and the jobs they support. Our existing sugar policy levels the 
playing field for American producers in the ever volatile world of the 
sugar market. It works. Sugar growers in my district can attest to 
that. Better yet, it has come at no cost to taxpayers for 14 of the 
last 15 years.
  I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina will state her 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close or does the 
gentleman from Texas have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Foxx 
amendment.
  In my home State of Minnesota, sugar beet is number one. That means 
this amendment will directly hurt my State's economy.
  Minnesota's sugar creates more than 28,000 jobs and has an annual 
impact of more than $3 billion. This amendment will cost Minnesota and 
other sugar-producing States so much more. It will hurt farmers, small 
businesses, schools, hospitals--real lives of real people in rural 
communities that this bill is supposed to help.
  We should be supporting American farmers instead of sending their 
jobs to countries that heavily subsidize sugar production, like Brazil 
and Mexico. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this harmful 
amendment, and I ask them to stand with farmers in Minnesota and all 
across the United States.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, in closing, our government's current sugar 
program is a job killer. It ensures profits for the connected few at 
the expense of the many. It operates at a substantial cost to 
taxpayers, consumers, and businesses. It is rooted in supply management 
economics that were drafted nearly 90 years ago.
  Every other commodity program was subjected to reforms during the 
last farm bill except the sugar program. Economists, consumer groups, 
environmentalists, manufacturers, editorial boards, and groups on both 
the left and right of the idealogical spectrum have all endorsed the 
idea of substantially reforming this program.
  It is time to end Congress' codification of a special interest 
giveaway. It is time to modernize the sugar program. I ask my 
colleagues to support our amendment and the farm bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't disagree more.
  The savings that are touted by the folks who are in favor of this 
amendment will not be shared with consumers. They will be kept by these 
multinational corporations and, yes, the small sugar users across this 
country. So prices will not go down.
  There are no tax dollars involved, despite the rhetoric to the 
contrary, except for 1 year out of 16, because this program worked. 
This program was not changed in 2014 because it works. It doesn't cost 
the taxpayers money, sugar prices are not distorted, and the 
manufacturers will not be able to support the one instance where they 
have lowered the cost of their product when sugar prices did in fact 
drop as a result of the unfair, unlevel playing field, unlevel 
competition around this world.
  If we could talk the rest of the world into going to a free market, 
to a level playing field, then I would agree completely with my 
colleagues who support this amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  We are not there. We are not even headed there. We need to defeat 
this amendment, protect those hardworking farmers out there across this 
country. Say ``no'' to Foxx.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Conaway

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, line 3, insert a comma after ``2008''.
       Page 28, line 6, strike ``covered commodity'' and all that 
     follows through ``basis'' on line 7, and insert the 
     following: ``covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis''.
       Page 103, strike lines 4 through 8.
       Page 110, line 17, insert ``, or eligible for indemnity or 
     compensation payments through programs administered by the 
     Secretary'' before the period at the end.
       Page 111, line 1, insert ``, the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service,'' after ``Conservation Service''.
       Page 218, line 15, strike ``bachelors'' and insert 
     ``bachelor's''.

[[Page H4178]]

       Page 224, line 22, strike `` `; and' '' and insert ``a 
     semicolon''.
       Page 225, line 13, strike ``, and'' and insert ``; and''.
       Page 225, line 15, strike ``member.'' and insert ``member; 
     and''.
       Page 228, line 18, strike ``enactment of'' and insert 
     ``enactment of the''.
       Page 232, line 5, add ``and'' at the end.
       Page 233, line 4, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       Page 237, line 24, strike ``Section 5'' and insert 
     ``Effective October 1, 2020, section 5''.
       Page 238, strike line 5, and insert the following:
       (B) by striking ``, supplemental security''
       Page 241, line 18, insert ``or disabled'' after 
     ``elderly''.
       Page 241, line 23, insert ``or disabled'' after 
     ``elderly''.
       Page 242, line 5, insert ``or disabled'' after ``elderly''.
       Page 242, line 8, insert ``or disabled'' after ``elderly''.
       Page 246, line 11, insert ``(including volunteer work that 
     is limited to 6 months out of a 12-month period)'' after 
     ``work''.
       Page 248, strike line 10.
       Page 248, line 17, strike the period and the close 
     quotation marks.
       Page 248, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(iv) a program of employment and training for veterans 
     operated by the Department of Labor or the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and approved by the Secretary.'', and
       Page 248, line 25, strike ``paragraph'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs (4) and''.
       Page 249, line 2, strike ``(D), and (C)'' and insert ``(C), 
     and (D)''.
       Page 251, line 2, insert ``and with the approval of the 
     chief executive officer of the State,'' after ``agency''.
       Page 251, line 22, strike ``6'' and insert ``7''.
       Page 251, line 24, insert ``most recent 24-month period for 
     which Department of Labor unemployment rates are available, 
     nor earlier than the'' after ``the''.
       Page 253, line 14, strike ``15-percent'' and insert 
     ``Percentage''.
       Page 254, line 11, strike ``; and'' at the end, and insert 
     a period.
       Page 254, strike lines 12 and 13.
       Page 254, strike lines 19 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Fiscal years 2021 through 2025.--Subject to clauses 
     (v) and (vi), for each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2025, 
     a State agency may provide a number''
       Page 255, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(iv) Fiscal year 2026 and thereafter.--Subject to clauses 
     (v) and (vi), for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, a State agency may provide a number of exemptions 
     such that the average monthly number of the exemptions in 
     effect during the fiscal year does not exceed 12 percent of 
     the number of covered individuals in the State in fiscal year 
     2019, as estimated by the Secretary, based on the survey 
     conducted to carry out section 16(c) for the most recent 
     fiscal year and such other factors as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate due to the timing and limitations of the 
     survey.''.
       Page 255, line 8, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(v)''.
       Page 255, line 17, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(vi)''.
       Page 258, line 19, strike clause (iv) and redesignate 
     succeeding clauses accordingly.
       Page 258, beginning on line 22, strike ``unpaid or 
     volunteer work that is limited to 6 months out of a 12-month 
     period'' and insert ``other work experience''.
       Page 259, line 3, add ``and'' at the end.
       Page 259, line 5, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 259, strike lines 6 through 8.
       Page 259, strike lines 9 and 10, and insert the following:
       (C) in subparagraph (F)--
       (i) clause (ii) by striking ``one hundred and twenty hours 
     per month'' and inserting ``the hours required under section 
     6(d)(1)(B)'', and
       (ii) by striking clause (iii),
       (D) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E), and inserting 
     the following:
       Page 259, line 16, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       Page 259, strike lines 18 and 19, and insert the following:
       (F) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (M) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (L),
       Beginning on page 259, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 260, and insert the following:
       (1) Amendments to the food and nutrition act of 2008.--The 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 5(d)(14) by striking ``6(d)(4)(I)'' and 
     inserting ``6(d)(4)(G)'', and
       (B) in section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(dd) by striking 
     ``(4)(F)(i), or (4)(K)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)(ii), 
     (4)(E)(i), or (4)(J)''.
       Page 260, strike lines 24 and 25, and insert the following:
       (1) by amending subsection (e)(5) to read as follows:
       ``(5) is--
       ``(A) a parent or other household member with 
     responsibility for the care of a dependent child under age 6 
     or of an incapacitated person; or
       ``(B) a parent or other household member with 
     responsibility for the care of a dependent child above the 
     age of 5 and under the age of 12 for whom adequate child care 
     is not available to enable the individual to attend class and 
     satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4); and''.
       Page 262, after line 24, insert the following:
       (C) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Return of unused employment and training funds to the 
     treasury.--If a State agency will not expend all of the funds 
     allocated to the State agency for a fiscal year under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall deposit such unused 
     funds in the general receipts of the Treasury.'',
       Page 263, line 1, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       Page 263, line 3, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''
       Page 263, beginning on line 22, strike subsection (g).
       Page 264, line 10, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(g).''
       Page 264, strike lines 11 and 12, and insert the following:
       (1) Amendments.--Section 20(b) of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 3029(b) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``6(d)(1)'' and inserting ``6(d)(1)(B)'', 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``or (F)'' and inserting ``(F), or (G)'', 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``sixteen'' and inserting 
     ``18''.
       Page 266, strike lines 1 through 6, and insert the 
     following:
       (B) in section 17(b) by striking paragraph (2).
       Page 266, after line 6, insert the following:
       (h)  Equitable Treatment of Households.--Section 11(e) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)), as 
     amended by section 4001, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(27) that the State agency may, for purposes of ensuring 
     equitable treatment among all households (including those 
     containing a married couple), request earned income data from 
     the Internal Revenue Service relevant to determining 
     eligibility to receive supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program benefits and determining the correct amount of such 
     benefits at the time of household certification.''.
       Page 269, line 5, strike the comma at the end and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Page 269, strike lines 6 and 7.
       Page 269, line 25, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 269, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(VII) requires that the State demonstration projects are 
     voluntary for all retail food stores and that all recipients 
     are able to use benefits in non-participating retail food 
     stores; and''.
       Page 270, line 1, strike ``(vii)'' and insert ``(viii)''.
       Page 271, line 1, strike ``processing'' and insert 
     ``prohibited''.
       Page 271, line 10, insert ``(as defined in subsection 
     (j)(1)(H)'' after ``switching''.
       Page 273, line 16, strike `` `independent' '' and all that 
     follows through ``means'' on line 17, and insert the 
     following: `` `independent sales organization' means''.
       Page 291, line 5, strike ``B Russell'' and insert ``B. 
     Russell''.
       Page 296, after line 13, insert the following:
       (C) in paragraph (3)(B) by inserting ``, other than those 
     incurred by State agencies in preparing State plans pursuant 
     to subsection (c)(2) and notifying applicants, participants, 
     and eligible individuals pursuant to subsection (c)(4),'' 
     after ``this section'',
       Page 296, line 14, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       Page 296, line 16, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       Page 297, line 6, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     comma at the end.
       Page 297, strike line 7 and insert the following:
       ``(D) Funds availability.--Funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall remain available for obligation for a period 
     of 2 fiscal years.'', and
       Page 299, strike lines 19 through 23, and insert the 
     following:
       (7) in section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(aa) by striking 
     ``3(n)'' and inserting ``3(m)'',
       Page 300, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 4037. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM OPERATIONS.

       Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2018), as amended by section 4026, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(j) Review of Program Operations.--
       ``(1) The Secretary--
       ``(A) shall review a representative sample of currently 
     authorized retail food stores as defined in subsections 
     (o)(2) and (k)(3) of section 3 to determine whether benefits 
     are properly used by or on behalf of participating households 
     residing in such facilities and whether such facilities are 
     using more than one source of Federal or State funding to 
     meet the food needs of residents;
       ``(B) may carry out similar reviews for currently 
     participating residential drug and alcohol treatment and 
     rehabilitation programs, and group living arrangements for 
     the blind and disabled;
       ``(C) shall gather information and these entities shall be 
     required to submit information deemed necessary for a full 
     and thorough review; and
       ``(D) shall report the results of these reviews to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the 
     Senate not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment 
     of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2018, along with 
     recommendations as to any additional requirements or 
     oversight that would be appropriate for such facilities and 
     retailers, and whether these entities should continue to be

[[Page H4179]]

     authorized to participate in the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall authorize the Secretary 
     to deny any application for continued authorization, any 
     application for authorization, or any request to withdraw the 
     authorization of any facility or entity referenced in 
     subsections (o)(2) and (k)(3) of section 3 based on a 
     determination that residents of any such facility or entity 
     are residents of an institution prior to--
       ``(A) the submission of the report described in paragraph 
     (1)(D); or
       ``(B) 3 years after the date of enactment of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2018;
     whichever is earlier.''.
       Page 301, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 4103. ELIGIBILITY FOR COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 5(g) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) Definition of certification period.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `certification period' means the period 
     that a participant in the commodity supplemental food program 
     may continue to receive benefits under that program without a 
     formal review of the eligibility of the participant.
       ``(B) Minimum certification period.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (C), a State shall establish a certification 
     period of not less than 1 year.
       ``(C) Extensions.--On the request of a State, the Secretary 
     shall approve a State certification period of more than 1 
     year on the condition that, on an annual basis, the local 
     agency in the State administering the commodity supplemental 
     food program--
       ``(i) verifies the address and continued interest of each 
     participant in receiving program benefits; and
       ``(ii) has sufficient reason to determine that the 
     participant still meets the income eligibility standards, 
     which may include a determination that the participant has a 
     fixed income.''.
       Page 301, line 3, redesignate section 4103 as section 4104.
       At the end of subtitle C of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 4205. REVIEW AND REVISION OF CERTAIN NUTRITION 
                   REGULATIONS.

       (a) Review of Existing Regulations.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and for the 
     purposes described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     review--
       (1) the final regulations on ``National School Lunch 
     Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for 
     All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger- 
     Free Kids Act of 2010'' published by the Department of 
     Agriculture in the Federal Register on July 29, 2016 (81 Fed. 
     Reg. 50123 et seq.); and
       (2) the final regulations on ``Nutrition Standards in the 
     National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs'' 
     published by the Department of Agriculture in the Federal 
     Register on January 26, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 4088 et seq.).
       (b) Finalizing New Regulations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with school nutrition personnel and school 
     leaders (including school administrators, school boards, and 
     parents), shall finalize new regulations that revise the 
     regulations described in subsection (a) based on the review 
     of such regulations under such subsection, including any 
     requirements for milk, to ensure that the requirements of 
     such regulations--
       (1) are based on research based on school-age children;
       (2) do not add costs in addition to the reimbursements 
     required to carry out the school lunch program authorized 
     under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the school breakfast program 
     established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 
     (42 U.S.C. 1773); and
       (3) maintain healthy meals for students.
       Page 327, line 4, strike ``heath'' and insert ``health''.
       Page 327, line 11, add a period at the end.
       Page 343, line 12, strike ``road mile'' and insert ``road-
     mile''.
       Page 344, line 4, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 361, after line 13, insert the following (and 
     redesignate any succeeding section accordingly):

     SEC. 6116. FEDERAL BROADBAND PROGRAM COORDINATION.

       (a) Consultation Between USDA and NTIA.--The Secretary 
     shall consult with the Assistant Secretary to assist in the 
     verification of eligibility of the broadband loan and grant 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture. In providing 
     assistance under the preceding sentence, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall make available the broadband assessment and 
     mapping capabilities of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration.
       (b) Consultation Between USDA and FCC.--
       (1) By usda.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Commission before making a broadband loan or grant for a 
     project to serve an area with respect to which another entity 
     is receiving Connect America Fund or Mobility Fund support 
     under the Federal universal service support mechanisms 
     established under section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254).
       (2) By fcc.--The Commission shall consult with the 
     Secretary before offering or providing Connect America Fund 
     or Mobility Fund support under the Federal universal service 
     support mechanisms established under section 254 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) to serve an area 
     with respect to which another entity has received an award 
     under a broadband loan or grant program of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the 
     Commission, and the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report 
     on how best to coordinate federally supported broadband 
     programs and activities in order to achieve the following 
     objectives:
       (1) Promote high-quality broadband service that meets the 
     long-term needs of rural residents and businesses, by 
     evaluating the broadband service needs in rural areas for 
     each decade through 2050.
       (2) Support the long-term viability, sustainability, and 
     utility of federally supported rural broadband 
     infrastructure, by analyzing the technical capabilities of 
     the technologies currently available and reasonably expected 
     to be available by 2035 to meet the broadband service needs 
     of rural residents identified under paragraph (1), including 
     by analyzing the following:
       (A) The real-world performance of such technologies, 
     including data rates, latency, data usage restrictions, and 
     other aspects of service quality, as defined by the 
     Commission.
       (B) The suitability of each such technology for 
     residential, agricultural, educational, healthcare, 
     commercial, and industrial purposes in rural areas.
       (C) The cost to deploy and support such technologies in 
     several rural geographies.
       (D) The costs associated with online platforms, 
     specifically the resulting constraints on rural network 
     bandwidth.
       (3) Identify and quantify the availability of broadband 
     service and ongoing broadband deployment in rural areas, 
     including ways to do the following:
       (A) Harmonize broadband notification and reporting 
     requirements and develop common verification procedures 
     across all federally supported broadband programs.
       (B) Consolidate and utilize the existing broadband service 
     data.
       (C) Collect and share data on those projects in rural areas 
     where Federal programs are currently supporting broadband 
     deployment, including areas with respect to which an entity 
     is receiving--
       (i) support under a broadband loan or grant program of the 
     Department of Agriculture; or
       (ii) Connect America Fund or Mobility Fund support under 
     the Federal universal service support mechanisms established 
     under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254).
       (D) Leverage support technologies and services from online 
     platforms for providers of broadband service in rural areas.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Assistant secretary.--The term ``Assistant Secretary'' 
     means the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 
     and Information.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (3) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 601(b)(3) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936.
       Page 364, line 14, strike ``tribes'' and insert ``Tribes''.
       Page 374, line 1, strike ``(U.S.C.'' and insert ``U.S.C.''.
       Page 379, line 24, strike ``by striking'' and all that 
     follows through ``and inserting'' on line 25, and insert the 
     following: ``by striking `maintained under section 
     313(b)(2)(A)' and inserting''.
       Page 390, line 16, strike ``and inserting'' and all that 
     follows through ``; and'' on line 17, and insert the 
     following: ``and inserting `305 or'; and''.
       Page 394, line 8, strike ``tribes'' and insert ``Tribes''.
       Page 414, line 2, strike the extra space before the closed 
     quotation mark.
       Page 436, after line 11, insert the following:
       (b) Priorities.--Section 412(h)(1) of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 
     U.S.C. 7632(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``multi-
     institutional'' and inserting ``or multi-institutional''.
       Page 436, line 12, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 436, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 455, line 20, insert ``or ranchers'' after 
     ``farmers''.
       Page 541, line 1, insert ``address'' before ``other''.
       Page 546, line 5, strike ``in'' and insert ``on''.
       Page 554, line 18, strike ``The Administrator;'' and insert 
     ``The Administrator''.
       Page 575, line 2, strike ``Department of Agriculture'' and 
     insert ``Food and Drug Administration''.
       Page 598, line 3, strike ``and subparagraph (B) of 
     paragraph (1)'' and all that follows through ``Secretary'' on 
     line 6, and insert the following: ``of paragraph (1)''.
       Page 598, line 9, insert ``, not more than 4 percent may be 
     retained by the Secretary to

[[Page H4180]]

     pay administrative costs incurred by the Secretary'' after 
     ``10409B''.
       Page 598, line 10, insert ``of such paragraph'' after 
     ``(B)''.
       Page 598, line 12, strike ``and (B)'' and all that follows 
     through ``paragraph'' on line 13.
       Page 598, line 13, strike ``ten'' and insert ``10''.
       Page 599, line 3, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``to be made available for expenditure without 
     further appropriation''.
       Page 621, line 23, strike ``boys'' and insert ``boys' ''.
       Page 622, line 8, strike ``boys'' and insert ``boys' ''.
       Page 635, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 11608. ESTABLISHMENT OF FOOD ACCESS LIAISON.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of the Department of 
     Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), as amended by sections 11204 and 11607, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 223. FOOD ACCESS LIAISON.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish the 
     position of Food Access Liaison to coordinate Department 
     programs to reduce barriers to food access and monitor and 
     evaluate the progress of such programs in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Food Access Liaison shall--
       ``(1) coordinate the efforts of the Department, including 
     regional offices, to experiment and consider programs and 
     policies aimed at reducing barriers to food access for 
     consumers, including but not limited to participants in 
     nutrition assistance programs;
       ``(2) provide outreach to entities engaged in activities to 
     reduce barriers to food access in accordance with the 
     statutory authorization for each program;
       ``(3) provide outreach to entities engaged in activities to 
     reduce barriers to food access, including retailers, markets, 
     producers, and others involved in food production and 
     distribution, with respect to the availability of, and 
     eligibility for, Department programs;
       ``(4) raise awareness of food access issues in interactions 
     with employees of the Department;
       ``(5) make recommendations to the Secretary with respect to 
     efforts to reduce barriers to food access; and
       ``(6) submit to Congress an annual report with respect to 
     the efforts of the Department to reduce barriers to food 
     access.''.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance to entities that are participants, or 
     seek to participate, in Department of Agriculture programs 
     related to reduction of barriers to food access.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2 includes a substantive, enforceable 
supportive work requirement for work-capable individuals 18 to 59. 
Waivers and exemptions were tightened to assure little abuse in a 
system currently rife with loopholes and gimmicks.
  We have also heard from our conservative stakeholders that workfare 
is an important tool for EP participants. Based on their feedback and 
explicit examples of where this has been implemented correctly, this 
amendment includes establishment of that.
  It is simply good policy to send unexpended funds back to the 
Treasury. This amendment does that.
  Our colleagues on the other side said we did not count veteran-
specific workforce development programs as a part of H.R. 2. Well, in 
addition to the provisions of H.R. 2 that has permitted State-based 
veteran workforce programs to count toward the work requirement, this 
amendment expands to include programs for veterans run by the 
Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, that would have been a terrific amendment for my 
colleagues to have offered in committee or on this floor, and we would 
have accepted it. They chose to stay on the sidelines.
  I have a great food bank in my district, West Texas Food Bank. Its 
chief executive related how important it was to provide a 1-year 
certification period for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program for 
seniors, a program currently serving seniors. This makes sense and 
allows seniors easier access to this important program.
  It is engagements like this that is what our process is all about, 
and we have amended our bill through this manager's amendment to 
include those.
  Mr. Chair, we also have changes in here that strengthen our framework 
for coordinating between USDA on FCA, on important operations, 
broadband work that is going on across jurisdictions. We want those two 
agencies to work together to better utilize the funding to make sure 
that rural America gets that broadband support that we really need. 
That is included in here as well.
  It also allows that communities will have a better opportunity to 
work for themselves rather than fighting the current bureaucracy here 
in Washington, D.C.
  This amendment also includes a variety of technical amendments, 
corrections to the bill, that you would normally have in a manager's 
amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I just want to say for the record that both 
Feeding America and Feeding Texas oppose this farm bill because they 
believe it will increase hunger in America, and I include the letter 
from Feeding Texas in the Record.

                                                Feeding Texas,

                                                   April 17, 2018.
     House Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway and Committee Members: Regretfully 
     and despite years of hard work, we are writing to oppose the 
     farm bill proposed by Chairman Conaway, as we believe it will 
     increase hunger and make it harder for struggling Texans to 
     succeed.
       Most SNAP recipients are children, seniors and people with 
     disabilities. Among SNAP recipients who can work, most 
     already do--just not at wages that allow them to escape 
     poverty. To help these workers we need to address the 
     weaknesses in our economy and our labor market that make it 
     hard for them to get ahead.
       Instead, this farm bill largely ignores the complex 
     challenges faced by low-wage workers, imposing harsh new 
     sanctions and requirements that will take food away from 
     families who are willing but unable to find consistent work.
       Hunger never helped anyone find a job.
       According to the CBO, the Chairman's bill will move 
     billions of dollars off the kitchen table, largely to finance 
     state bureaucracies intended to assist recipients with 
     employment. Food will remain critical fuel for the success of 
     these families, yet this bill would effectively starve Peter 
     to employ Paul.
       Losing SNAP will make it harder for these families to make 
     ends meet. We fully expect our food banks to experience the 
     brunt of this increased need. Across Texas, our food banks 
     already struggle to meet the demand in their communities, and 
     we will not be able to keep up.
       We are also very concerned that this bill will repeal state 
     flexibility and put massive new responsibilities on states in 
     pursuit of better employment outcomes for recipients. These 
     ideas ignore the evidence-based policy making that the 
     Chairman has espoused by selling a promise on work, but not 
     delivering on the necessary funding or details.
       We urge every member of the committee to reject this 
     proposal, and return to a bipartisan process that will help 
     more hard-working Americans avoid hunger and achieve 
     financial security.
           Sincerely,
         Celia Cole, CEO, Feeding Texas; Zack Wilson, Executive 
           Director, High Plains Food Bank; Theresa Mangapora, 
           Executive Director, Brazos Valley Food Bank; Bea 
           Hanson, Executive Director, Coastal Bend Food Bank; 
           Dennis Cullinane, CEO, East Texas Food Bank; Robin 
           Cadle, President/CEO, Food Bank of the Golden Crescent; 
           Jody Houston, CEO, Food Bank of West Central Texas; 
           Brian Greene, President/CEO Houston Food Bank.
         Trisha Cunningham, President/CEO, North Texas Food Bank; 
           Dan Maher, Executive Director, Southeast Texas Food 
           Bank; Alma Boubel, Executive Director, South Texas Food 
           Bank; Libby Campbell, Executive Director, West Texas 
           Food Bank; Derrick Chubbs, President/CEO, Central Texas 
           Food Bank; Gregory Duke, Executive Director, Concho 
           Valley Regional Food Bank.
         Susan Goodell, CEO, El Pasoans Fighting Hunger Food Bank; 
           DeAnne Economedes, Interim CEO, Food Bank of the Rio 
           Grande Valley; Richard Nye, Executive Director, 
           Galveston County Food Bank; Allison Hulett, President/
           CEO, Montgomery County Food Bank; Eric Cooper, 
           President/CEO, San Antonio Food Bank; David Weaver, 
           CEO, South Plains Food Bank; Bo Soderbergh, Executive 
           Director, Tarrant Area Food Bank; Kara Nickens, 
           Executive Director, Wichita Falls Area Food Bank.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thought that this bill couldn't get any 
worse, but I was wrong. This amendment is a sure sign that this 
underlying farm bill is a complete mess. This manager's amendment is 
longer than most bills that we consider in this House.

[[Page H4181]]

  First, it puts a Band-Aid on the beating the majority took during the 
markup when they finally realized that disabled people would be hurt by 
their zeal to sever LIHEAP from SNAP. But to do that, to help disabled 
people, cost them money, so they had to find savings somewhere. And 
they landed on taking away more flexibility from States for waivers, 
the result of which is that 600,000 people--600,000 more able-bodied 
adults without dependents--will lose SNAP.
  Here is the best part of it: The 600,000 will be kicked off right 
away, at least a year before the mandatory work scheme--which is 
underfunded and will be a mass of bureaucracy--is in effect. So in 
spite of the rhetoric to provide on-ramps, off-ramps, trampolines, or 
whatever to help people get good jobs, they do not deliver--not for 
SNAP, and not for farmers.
  As I have said over and over and over again, a farm bill should be a 
bipartisan product. It should be reflective of bipartisan concerns. It 
should help farmers, and it should help those struggling in need to put 
food on the table. This bill doesn't do enough to help farmers, and it 
certainly doesn't do anything to help people struggling with hunger. In 
fact, this bill makes hunger worse in America, and that is shameful.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 2 and the 
accompanying manager's amendment.
  I appreciate the chairman's leadership on this effort, not only in 
the underlying bill but the amendment to improve upon it. I thank the 
gentleman for including my food access liaison provision in the 
amendment.
  Just briefly: This individual will be tasked with coordinating USDA 
programs aimed at improving Americans' access to quality food and 
providing technical assistance to community leaders who are working to 
improve the lives of those living in food deserts. This is a small 
measure of progress that we can all be proud of and continue our work 
to ensure folks have access to healthy and nutritious foods.
  However, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that access to healthy 
and nutritious food relies on the food security system, the strong food 
security system provided by this farm bill. And I thank the chairman 
for his leadership in that regard.
  As we will soon vote on amendments, I urge my colleagues to remember 
the importance of a strong food security system for all of our 
commodities, whether that be under the ARC program or the PLC program 
for crops such as rice, soybeans, and corn or the current sugar 
program. If we pick apart our commodity programs one by one, we will 
create giant holes in our Nation's food security system. This 
compromises our national security and hinders our ability to provide 
healthy, nutritious food, not just to rural communities that produce 
the food but to urban areas and, in fact, the entire Nation and beyond.
  Mr. Chair, again, I want to thank the chairman for his diligence and 
leadership on this issue, and not only in regard to the commodity title 
but certainly the nutrition title, to our vice chairman and chairman of 
the Nutrition Subcommittee, G.T. Thompson, for his diligence as well. 
And I appreciate the work on the part of our Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Chair, I have the honor of not only sitting 
on the Committee on Agriculture but also of sitting on the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, so I know very well how important healthy, 
hunger-free children are to a good education system.
  On top of already harmful policies, the Conaway manager's amendment 
compromises the current science-based nutrition standards in Federal 
schools meals programs. By politicizing and legislating nutrition 
standards, this amendment, if adopted, will further threaten the school 
meals programs upon which millions of children rely.
  The USDA updated the current standards based on rigorous, evidence-
based processes, as required by the last bipartisan Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization. These standards rely on expert, nonpartisan 
recommendations. Research shows that children are now eating 16 percent 
more vegetables and 23 percent more fruit at lunch. Further, according 
to a poll by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 97 percent of Americans 
support the National School Nutrition Standards and 86 percent say the 
School Nutrition Standards should stay or be strengthened.
  There is simply no reason to depart from science-based and evidence-
based standards. We should not compromise on what is best for our 
children. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics, American 
Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, and others oppose 
rolling back the standards. I urge my colleagues to oppose these 
efforts that would further threaten the health of our Nation's children 
and students.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how many more speakers the 
gentleman from Texas might have.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, let me close by saying this manager's 
amendment highlights how deeply flawed this bill is. I regret very much 
that a flawed bill is being brought to the House floor because of a 
flawed process.
  I am the ranking Democrat in the Nutrition Subcommittee. I didn't see 
the nutrition title until it was made public to the press. We had 23 
hearings in the Agriculture Committee. This nutrition title does not 
reflect those hearings. We should have had a hearing on this nutrition 
title to understand the impacts that it will have on some of the most 
vulnerable people in this country.
  We live in the richest country in the history of the world. We have 
millions of people who are food insecure or hungry. We have an 
obligation here in this House of Representatives to make sure that we 
don't let them fall through the cracks. And yet, we have this bill that 
will make hunger worse in America. This manager's amendment does 
nothing to fix it. In fact, in some cases it makes it worse.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it but, 
more importantly, reject this bill. Send it back to committee. Let's do 
it right. Let's have a bipartisan bill, one that we can all be proud 
of.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman just previously mentioned the 
increase in fruits and vegetables being eaten by children in school. I 
would point out that our bill includes $1.2 billion in incentives to 
help moms and dads out there who are on SNAP to buy fruits and 
vegetables and dairy to get a bigger bang for their buck and thereby 
hopefully increasing those commodities.
  Mr. Chair, we have a good bill here, the base bill. This simply makes 
it better. With that, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 29, line 18, strike subsection (a) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (a) Determination of Payment Acres.--Subject to subsection 
     (d), for the purpose of price loss coverage and agriculture 
     risk coverage, the payment acres for each covered

[[Page H4182]]

     commodity on a farm shall be equal to, with respect to base 
     acres for the covered commodity on the farm--
       (1) for crop years 2019 and 2020, 85 percent of such base 
     acres;
       (2) for crop year 2021, 76.5 percent of such base acres;
       (3) for crop year 2022, 68 percent of such base acres;
       (4) for crop year 2023, 59.5 percent of such base acres;
       (5) for crop year 2024, 51 percent of such base acres;
       (6) for crop year 2025, 42.5 percent of such base acres;
       (7) for crop year 2026, 34 percent of such base acres;
       (8) for crop year 2027, 25.5 percent of such base acres;
       (9) for crop year 2028, 17 percent of such base acres; and
       (10) for crop year 2029, 8.5 percent of such base acres.
       Page 32, line 11, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 32, line 25, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 33, line 14, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 34, line 9, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 35, after line 16, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (h) Termination of Authority.--The Secretary may not make 
     payments under this section after crop year 2029.
       Page 35, line 23, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 38, line 10, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 40, after line 3, insert the following new subsection:
       (h) Termination of Authority.--The Secretary may not make 
     payments under this section after crop year 2029.
       Strike section 1301 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1301. SUGAR POLICY.

       (a) Phase Out of Current Program and Loan Rates.--
       (1) Sugarcane.--Section 156(a) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7272(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2020''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) 16.88 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2021 
     crop year;
       ``(6) 15.01 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2022 
     crop year;
       ``(7) 13.14 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2023 
     crop year;
       ``(8) 11.27 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2024 
     crop year;
       ``(9) 9.4 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2025 
     crop year;
       ``(10) 7.53 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2021 
     crop year;
       ``(11) 5.66 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2027 
     crop year;
       ``(12) 3.79 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2028 
     crop year; and
       ``(13) 1.92 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for the 2029 
     crop year.''.
       (2) Sugar beets.--Section 156(b)(2) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7272(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2018'' and inserting 
     ``2029''.
       (3) Termination of effective period.--Section 156(i) of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7272(i)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2029''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     authority to carry out this section shall terminate on 
     September 30, 2029.''
       (b) Phase Out of Flexible Marketing Allotments for Sugar.--
       (1) Sugar estimates.--Section 359b(a)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2029''.
       (2) Sugar allotments.--Section 359b(b)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(b)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (B) by striking ``at a level that is'' and inserting the 
     following: ``at a level equal to--
       ``(A) for crop year 2021, 76.5 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(B) for crop year 2022, 68 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(C) for crop year 2023, 59.5 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(D) for crop year 2024, 51 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(E) for crop year 2025, 42.5 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(F) for crop year 2026, 34 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(G) for crop year 2027, 25.5 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year;
       ``(H) for crop year 2028, 17 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year; and
       ``(I) for crop year 2029, 8.5 percent of the estimated 
     quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for such 
     crop year.''.
       (3) Termination of effective period.--Section 359l(a) of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359ll(a)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2029''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     authority to carry out this part shall terminate on September 
     30, 2029.''
       Page 85, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 
     86, line 2, and insert the following:
       (3) Election of production history coverage percentage.--
     Section 1406(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 
     9056(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) a percentage of coverage, in 5-percent increments, 
     not exceeding, with respect to the production history of the 
     participating dairy operation--
       ``(A) for calendar year 2019 and 2020, 90 percent;
       ``(B) for calender year 2021, 81 percent;
       ``(C) for calender year 2022, 72 percent;
       ``(D) for calendar year 2023, 63 percent;
       ``(E) for calendar year 2024, 54 percent;
       ``(F) for calendar year 2025, 45 percent;
       ``(G) for calendar year 2026, 36 percent;
       ``(H) for calendar year 2027, 27 percent;
       ``(I) for calendar year 2028, 18 percent; and
       ``(J) for calendar year 2029, 10 percent.''.
       Page 90, line 25, strike ``2023'' and insert ``2029''.
       Page 579, after 2, insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 10006. PHASE OUT OF CROP INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

       (a) Phase Out of Premiums.--Section 508(e) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and (7)'' and inserting 
     ``(7), (9), and (10)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(9) Phase out of premiums.--Beginning with reinsurance 
     year 2021, in determining the amount of premium to be paid 
     under paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), the Corporation shall 
     multiply the amount specified in subparagraphs (B)(i), 
     (C)(i), (D)(i), (E)(i), (F)(i), (G)(i), and (H)(i) of 
     paragraph (2), subparagraphs (A)(i), (B)(i), (C)(i), and 
     (D)(i) of paragraph (6), and subparagraphs (A)(i), (B)(i), 
     and (C)(i) of paragraphs (7), by--
       ``(A) in reinsurance year 2021, 0.9;
       ``(B) in reinsurance year 2022, 0.8;
       ``(C) in reinsurance year 2023, 0.7;
       ``(D) in reinsurance year 2024, 0.6;
       ``(E) in reinsurance year 2025, 0.5;
       ``(F) in reinsurance year 2026, 0.4;
       ``(G) in reinsurance year 2027, 0.3;
       ``(H) in reinsurance year 2028, 0.2; and
       ``(I) in reinsurance year 2029, 0.1.
       ``(10) Termination of authority.--The authority to make 
     payments under this subsection shall terminate on the first 
     day of reinsurance year 2030.''.
       (b) Phase Out of Administration and Operating Cost 
     Reimbursements.--Section 508(k)(4) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraphs (B), (C), (E), and (F); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Reductions.--
       ``(i) In general.--Beginning with reinsurance year 2021, in 
     calculating the rate established by the Board to reimburse 
     approved insurance providers and agents for the 
     administrative and operating costs of the providers and 
     agents, the Secretary shall multiply the percent specified in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) by--

       ``(I) in reinsurance year 2021, 0.9;
       ``(II) in reinsurance year 2022, 0.8;
       ``(III) in reinsurance year 2023, 0.7;
       ``(IV) in reinsurance year 2024, 0.6;
       ``(V) in reinsurance year 2025, 0.5;
       ``(VI) in reinsurance year 2026, 0.4;
       ``(VII) in reinsurance year 2027, 0.3;
       ``(VIII) in reinsurance year 2028, 0.2; and
       ``(IX) in reinsurance year 2029, 0.1.

       ``(ii) Termination.--The authority to make reimbursements 
     under this paragraph shall terminate on the first day of 
     reinsurance year 2030.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2023, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that includes an 
     assessment of whether reimbursements under this paragraph for 
     administrative and operating costs are effective.''.

     SEC. 10007. REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE INSURANCE.

       (a) Stacked Income Protection Plan.--Section 508B(a) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1508b(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``the Corporation shall'' and inserting 
     ``the Corporation may''.
       (b) Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance.--Section 508C(a) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1508c(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``the Corporation shall'' and inserting 
     ``the Corporation may''.
       (c) Update Standard Reinsurance Agreement.--The Secretary 
     shall update the 2019 Standard Reinsurance Agreement to 
     include that the Company may offer and market all plans of 
     insurance for all crops in any State where actuarial 
     documents are available in which it writes an eligible crop 
     insurance contract and shall accept and approve applications 
     from all eligible producers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and

[[Page H4183]]

a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, farm subsidies, essentially taking money 
from taxpayers to inflate the price of their own groceries, was never a 
good idea. They are the poster children of corporate welfare since the 
vast proportion of them go to large corporations, not to small family 
farms. And 60 percent of American farms get no subsidies at all, 
contradicting the claim that somehow American agriculture couldn't 
exist without them.
  We spend about $20 billion a year subsidizing about 40 percent of our 
farms. That is $160 a year out of the direct taxes of an average family 
in America, and that doesn't include the cost to consumers from higher 
prices. As we just heard, the sugar program alone costs taxpayers $3.7 
billion a year in higher sugar prices. That adds about $30 more to 
their grocery bills.
  Subsidies hurt taxpayers, they hurt consumers, and they even hurt 
farmers in the long run. The decline in farm economy since the last 
farm bill ought to warn us we are doing something wrong.
  Prices are signals sent by consumers over what they want to buy and 
the amount that they are willing to pay. If left alone, they tell 
producers what consumers want more of and what they want less of. If 
consumers want less soybeans and sugar and more wheat and cabbage, 
prices for soybeans and sugar decline and prices for wheat and cabbage 
increase. Producers respond by planting less soybeans and sugarcane and 
more wheat and cabbage, unless--unless--the government distorts those 
price signals through subsidies. Producers end up planting more of what 
consumers don't want and less of what they do. Thus, producers are 
artificially induced to perform below their potential productivity.
  Many of the subsidies today are in the form of crop insurance. 
Farmers get heavily subsidized insurance to guarantee them profits for 
their products. Who pays those subsidies? Taxpayers. What is insurance? 
It is the monetization of risk. It is the way markets assign a dollar 
value to the risk that one undertakes in any human enterprise. The 
higher the risk, the more expensive the insurance.
  By subsidizing crop insurance, we once again corrupt the price 
signals that farmers need to make rational decisions. If crop insurance 
for soybeans is expensive, the market is warning farmers not to rely on 
soybeans. If taxpayers subsidize the cost of that insurance to lower 
its price, we are encouraging very risky behavior by masking the cost 
of that risk.
  Once again, that produces bad outcomes for taxpayers, for consumers, 
and ultimately the farmers themselves because they have been led toward 
higher risk by distorted price signals.
  Nor is subsidized insurance necessary for farm loans. Bankers loan to 
other non-subsidized parts of the farm economy without subsidized 
insurance. There are no good arguments for continuing these subsidies. 
Most farmers don't get them right now. Those who do tend to be major 
corporations and not family farmers.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, my amendment preserves subsidies for the next 2 years and then 
gradually phases them out over the next 10 years, assuring that 
producers who have grown dependent on these subsidies have plenty of 
time to adjust their operations. But at the end of this 12-year 
process, we have a much more efficiently functioning agricultural 
market that is accurately responding to the needs of consumers rather 
than to the whims of government bureaucrats.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
oppose this amendment.
  I was here in 1996 when we tried something similar to this. It wasn't 
as extreme, but it was supposed to save us a little bit of money.
  Does the gentleman remember?
  It ended up costing us five times more than what we saved because it 
didn't work.
  This is a fantasy that is out there for some people. People have no 
clue how much it costs to farm nowadays, what kind of risks you take in 
farming. And if you want to make sure that we have a few people farm 
this whole country, this is the way to do it, because, without crop 
insurance, without these other backstops, young people and ordinary 
people will not be able to farm. The people who will farm are people 
with deep pockets, and that is not what we want in this country.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, where do I begin? I guess it was JFK who 
said the farmer is the only businessman who--I think he said it this 
way--who buys retail, sells wholesale, and pays freight both ways.
  So we are comparing apples and oranges here with a business that is, 
say, I don't know, an accountant maybe--I don't know, Mr. Chairman--and 
a farmer. Farming is inherently risky, so that is not even debatable.
  The issue we have here, though, is is it worth it to us as a nation 
to make an investment in our national security?
  Our ability to feed ourselves is absolutely crucial to our national 
security, number one. Number two, we support our farmers at a fraction 
of what the rest of the world does, and so we get much better value, 
much better return on investment.
  I think the disposable income of an average American is somewhere in 
the 12 percent range, what we spend on food; and if you think about and 
compare it to, say, in Europe where they are upwards of 20 percent and 
Japan in the 25 percent range of their disposable income, we get a much 
better return, much, much better value to the taxpayer.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, why do we invest in agriculture? Because the 
ability to eat, to feed ourselves is one of the most fundamentally 
important things that goes on in an economy. We make those investments 
so that we will always have a sufficient supply of the highest quality 
food and fiber at the most affordable prices.
  Empires, countries, republics, democracies have been destroyed 
throughout history when they lost their ability to feed themselves.
  I will tell you a strong farm bill, the investment we make is one of 
the key foundations to protecting the Constitution, just like our 
responsibilities to have a standing army to defend the coast, to defend 
the airspace, to defend our folks.
  Maybe you don't want to make that investment, maybe you are willing 
to take a chance, but when we don't have enough to eat, it will be too 
late to fix the problem.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the ranking member that 
the reason the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill ended up costing us more is 
because we ended up adding a whole new series of subsidies to it. 
Experience is important to heed.
  New Zealand has four times more dependency on agriculture than the 
United States--they are four times more dependent--and it once 
maintained an extensive subsidy program just like ours. In 1984, New 
Zealand ended those subsidies. Well, what happened? Farm productivity 
rose, farm earnings rose, farm output all rose.
  What did New Zealand farmers who opposed the ending of subsidies say 
once those subsidies were removed and the economy responded? The 
Federated Farmers of New Zealand says that it ``thoroughly debunked the 
myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government 
subsidies.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is long past time to debunk that same myth in our 
own country, restore to consumers the power to command what producers 
grow, and restore to producers the accurate price signals they need to 
maximize their productivity in a free and undistorted market.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4184]]

  

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, we have got a clear-cut choice: you either 
want American producers to produce American food or you don't. That is 
what this is simply about.
  When I think about the farm bill, you can love it or hate the safety 
net we have in place, but it works--as the chairman said, the lowest 
cost price food in the developed world.
  Here is why that is important. Half of America works paycheck to 
paycheck. Their food budget is where they flex. Their rent doesn't 
change. Their house payment doesn't change. Their car payment doesn't 
change. But if something comes up in the middle of the month, it is 
coming out of that food budget.

  I don't want to make that mom's job any tougher than it already is by 
raising the cost of food arbitrarily, capriciously, by ignoring the 
vast amount of competition around this world that is fundamentally 
unfair.
  If we could go to that utopia that my friend from California would 
like to get us to, fantastic, but we can't do that. They barely could 
do it in New Zealand, for goodness' sake. We could not do that against 
the rest of the world.
  I would argue that U.S. production is a bit more complicated than 
whatever New Zealand might or might not be doing. We have got to 
compete in a world global market against foreign treasuries that are 
spending stunningly more money than we are.
  China spent $100 billion on three products in 1 year to subsidize 
their products. Now, did that send the wrong signal to those folks? 
Yes, it did. We farmers and our rice farmers and our other producers 
have to compete against the prices that are depressed like that.
  We can't go against the rest of the world. If the rest of the world 
will go to a level playing field, I have got not one farmer out there 
who would say: No, no, no, we want to keep it in place. They want to 
compete in the cash market. That is where they want to make their 
money. This amendment would strip them of the ability to do that. We 
would go to foreign-imported food coming at us with standards that are 
not remotely close to ours, labor that is not closely protected the way 
ours is.
  Let's defeat this McClintock amendment, show the American farmer and 
rancher out there, who works as hard as anybody in this world, who 
thinks a 20-hour workweek is something they do in their second or third 
job in order to keep the farm going, let's show them that we support 
them. Let's show them that we have got their back.
  A ``yes'' vote for McClintock says: Never mind, we don't care about 
you. A ``no'' vote on McClintock says exactly the message we want to 
send, and I am hopeful this is a stunningly large vote so that American 
producers out there, who are some of the hardest working, best people 
on the face of the Earth, can understand that this Congress understands 
the unfair foreign competition that they are competing with.
  Vote ``no'' on McClintock.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. LaHood

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed House Report 115-679.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title I, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 1612. ONE-TIME FILING FOR ARC AND PLC.

       (a) One-time Filing.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     during the first enrollment period announced by the Farm 
     Service Agency after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     producers on a farm may file a one-time program contract with 
     the Secretary to enroll in agricultural risk coverage or 
     price loss coverage through crop year 2023.
       (b) Updated Program Contract Required.--In the case of a 
     change in a farming operation for which producers on a farm 
     have filed a one-time program contract pursuant to subsection 
     (a), such producers shall file an updated program contract 
     with the Secretary not later than one year after such change 
     in the farming operation occurs.
       (c) Notice of Other Annual Reporting.--The Secretary shall 
     provide to each producer that files a one-time program 
     contract pursuant to subsection (a) a notice that includes 
     the annual and other periodic reporting requirements 
     applicable to such producer, as determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Regulations Revised.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
     this section; and
       (2) revise section 1412.41 of title 7, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, in accordance with this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have introduced would streamline a 
burdensome regulatory requirement currently in place for two USDA 
programs. The first is the Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, and the 
Price Loss Coverage, or PLC. My amendment changes the signup process 
from an annual signup process to a one-and-done process for the 
duration of the 5-year farm bill.
  Our farmers work tirelessly to provide food for our families, our 
country, and to grow products that are shipped all over the world. From 
raising livestock to growing crops such as soybeans and corn, they 
contribute to the lifeblood of my State of Illinois and also our 
national economy.
  To fully support the agriculture community, we must maintain an 
efficient and effective program and programs that allow our farmers to 
be globally competitive. Given the tremendous impact of the agriculture 
industry on the U.S. economy, we must work to ensure that our farmers 
are able to operate without burdensome and time-consuming regulatory 
requirements.
  My district in central and west-central Illinois is the eighth 
largest district in terms of corn and soybean production in the 
country, and I hear from my farmers across my district and from my own 
agriculture advisory committee that the amount of time spent filling 
out paperwork for these programs, even when there is no change to their 
farming operation, takes up too much of their valuable time which could 
be used on their farms.
  Under the current rules, to file an annual contract, farmers need to 
collect signatures from landlords or other individuals with an interest 
in the land. Many landlords reside out of the State or out of the 
country, making this paperwork burdensome and very difficult in many 
cases.
  Under our amendment, farmers will be able to and be eligible for a 
one-time signup for ARC and PLC for the duration of the 5-year farm 
bill so long as there are no changes to the current farming operation. 
If a farmer does make changes to their farming operation, they must 
reflect those changes in a new signup, as is the current process. This 
simple fix will help our farmers spend more time farming and less time 
filling out paperwork.
  I want to thank Chairman Conaway and his staff for working with me on 
this amendment, and I appreciate all of his support for this 
commonsense reform that is so important to our farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, this is common sense, and I support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H4185]]

  



            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 113, line 5, strike ``inserting a semicolon'' and 
     insert ``inserting `; and' ''.
       Page 113, strike lines 7 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(F) each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, no more than 
     24,000,000 acres.'';

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, though I plan to withdraw this 
amendment, I seek to enter into a colloquy with my good friend, 
Chairman Conaway, regarding the Conservation Reserve Program and to 
express concern with the number of acres authorized in the CRP program 
in H.R. 2.
  Chairman Conaway has been a strong chairman and a leader for 
America's farmers, and for that I would like to thank him.
  CRP is a well-intended program that has a place in protecting 
sensitive lands; however, the program should not be expanded beyond 
levels currently authorized in the Agriculture Act of 2014.
  The Agriculture Act of 2014 reduced the national CRP acreage cap from 
32 million acres to 27.5 million acres in 2014 and to 24 million acres 
in 2018. H.R. 2 would then increase this cap by 1 million acres each 
year to a maximum enrollment of 29 million acres by 2023.
  USDA's Farm Service Agency's CRP enrollment data reveals that, for 
the 2016 fiscal year, 23.9 million acres were enrolled in CRP, 
representing approximately 7 percent of the U.S. cropland. Rental rates 
and leases offered by the Federal Government are often much more 
lucrative than farming would be.
  While congressional directives and a favorable farm economy in prior 
years led to lower CRP enrollment, nearly one-quarter of all land 
enrolled in CRP has been enrolled for more than 20 years, including 2.7 
million acres, or 12 percent, enrolled for more than three decades 
since the inception of the program. During the 2016 fiscal year, 
payments for CRP lands totaled $1.7 billion.
  As our Nation's farmers and ranchers face the challenge of meeting 
the increasing demand for food and fiber in the U.S. and abroad, I ask 
the chairman: Should America's producers be forced to continue 
competing with Federal programs for access to farmland?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for bringing up this important issue.
  I agree with the gentleman from Alabama that our farmers and ranchers 
should not be competing with the Federal Government for viable 
cropland. H.R. 2 makes many changes to the CRP program, such as capping 
the rental rate payment to 80 percent of the county average and 
stepping this percentage down for subsequent reenrollments of the same 
tract.
  I understand, however, the gentleman's concerns with the increase in 
enrolled acres, and I commit to working with the gentleman and his 
staff on this issue during the coming conference report, should we get 
there.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his 
leadership and commitment
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1615


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Faso

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 2407. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION.

       The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 
     U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 5(e), by striking ``and December 31, 2015'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2022'';
       (2) in section 6(d), by striking ``, respectively'' and 
     inserting ``, and a program update shall be completed by 
     December 31, 2023'';
       (3) in section 7--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``and 2016'' and 
     inserting ``, 2016, and 2022''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``and 2017'' and inserting ``, 2017, and 
     2023'';
       (4) in section 10, by striking ``2018'' and inserting 
     ``2023'';
       (5) by redesignating sections 8 through 10 as sections 9 
     though 11, respectively; and
       (6) by inserting after section 7 the following:

     ``SEC. 8. CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ASSESSMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--In coordination with the appraisal of 
     soil, water, and related resources and with the national soil 
     and water conservation program established under this Act, 
     the Secretary may carry out a conservation effects assessment 
     project to quantify the environmental and economic effects of 
     conservation practices, develop the science base for managing 
     the agricultural landscape for environmental quality and 
     sustainable productive capacity, and improve the efficacy of 
     conservation practices and programs by evaluating 
     conservation effects.
       ``(b) Scope.--The project under this subsection may be 
     carried out at national, regional, and watershed scales, and 
     may include cropland, grazing lands, wetlands, forests, and 
     such other lands as the Secretary may determine appropriate.
       ``(c) Activities.--The project under this subsection may 
     include research, literature reviews and bibliographies, 
     modeling, assessment, monitoring and data collection, 
     outreach, extension education, and such other activities as 
     the Secretary may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 9. GOALS AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR CONSERVATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Natural Resource and Environmental Objectives and 
     Outcomes.--
       ``(1) In general.--In coordination with the appraisal of 
     soil, water, and related resources, the soil and water 
     conservation program, and the conservation effects assessment 
     project established by this Act, the Secretary shall 
     identify, and periodically revise, specific natural resource 
     and environmental objectives and anticipated conservation 
     outcomes and results, by resource concern, for the 
     conservation programs established under subtitles D and H of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 and the landscape 
     conservation initiatives developed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Assessments.--To help measure outcomes and results, 
     the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make 
     assessments of changes in the status and conditions of 
     natural resources and the environment that result from the 
     application of conservation activities supported directly by 
     such conservation programs and initiatives.
       ``(3) Monitoring and program evaluation.--The Secretary 
     shall establish a coordinated monitoring and evaluation 
     process for programs and initiatives to assess progress 
     toward the identified objectives, to gather information to 
     improve program and initiative implementation in accordance 
     with desired program and initiative outcomes and results, and 
     to assess the need for modifications to program or initiative 
     rules or statutes.
       ``(b) Monitoring and Program Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     comprehensive monitoring and program evaluation process to 
     assess progress in reaching natural resource and 
     environmental objectives identified in accordance with 
     subsection (a) and the contribution of individual programs 
     and initiatives, as well as the programs and initiatives 
     collectively, to that progress.
       ``(2) Implementation.--In implementing the monitoring and 
     program evaluation process under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     may consider and incorporate resource concern inventories, 
     quality criteria, conservation practices and enhancements, 
     and such other information as the Secretary determines 
     relevant for applying the monitoring and program evaluation 
     process across each of the major land uses identified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Monitoring and evaluation process.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than two years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a 
     design for the comprehensive monitoring and evaluation 
     process, a schedule for implementing the process, and a plan 
     for coordinating the process with the national soil and water 
     conservation program and conservation effects assessment 
     project established under this Act.
       ``(B) Methodology.--The design for the monitoring and 
     evaluation process shall--

[[Page H4186]]

       ``(i) include detailed information concerning the requisite 
     frequency of the monitoring process at the field, water body, 
     habitat, or other level and the manner in which the data will 
     be aggregated at the landscape or watershed level, county or 
     local level, State level, national level, and any other level 
     the Secretary determines necessary; and
       ``(ii) take into account the cumulative nature of 
     conservation over time, the interactions and sequencing 
     effects between conservation activities, the differing times 
     for conservation effects to be realized, and other related 
     measurement challenges.
       ``(C) Public research.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, in order to facilitate implementation of the 
     monitoring and evaluation process, the Secretary shall make 
     available conservation activity and program data to 
     cooperators and researchers engaged in public research and 
     evaluation activities to improve conservation outcomes under 
     this subsection, provided that--
       ``(i) adequate assurances are provided to the Secretary 
     that any resulting research or information will be made 
     publicly available and in a form that protects personally 
     identifiable information; and
       ``(ii) the National Technical Committee finds that any such 
     research is likely to generate information that furthers the 
     purpose of this section.
       ``(4) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may implement 
     the monitoring evaluation process in part through cooperative 
     or contribution agreements with Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, universities and colleges, nongovernmental 
     organizations with requisite expertise, as determined by the 
     Secretary in consultation with the National Technical 
     Committee.
       ``(5) National technical committee.--
       ``(A) Composition.--The monitoring and evaluation process 
     shall be administered by the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service with assistance from a national technical committee 
     appointed by the Secretary and composed of individuals with 
     relevant technical and scientific expertise representing--
       ``(i) the Agricultural Research Service of the Department 
     of Agriculture;
       ``(ii) the Economic Research Service of the Department of 
     Agriculture;
       ``(iii) the Farm Service Agency of the Department of 
     Agriculture;
       ``(iv) the Forest Service;
       ``(v) the National Institute for Food and Agriculture;
       ``(vi) the United States Geological Survey;
       ``(vii) State and tribal agencies;
       ``(viii) land grant university natural resource research 
     programs;
       ``(ix) nongovernmental organizations with expertise in the 
     full array of conservation issues and measurement and 
     evaluation of conservation outcomes; and
       ``(x) such other agencies, institutions, or organizations 
     as the Secretary may determine appropriate.
       ``(B) FACA exemption.--The national technical committee 
     shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       ``(C) Transparency.--The Secretary shall ensure the 
     proceedings and recommendations of the national technical 
     committee are available to the public.
       ``(6) Voluntary participation.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that any on-farm 
     monitoring activities that may be included as part of the 
     monitoring and program evaluation process are voluntary on 
     the part of the producer, and may include appropriate 
     compensation, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     for each fiscal year, the amount that is equal to one percent 
     of the total annual funding from the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation made available in the preceding fiscal 
     year for the conservation programs established under 
     subtitles D and H of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985, excluding the conservation reserve program.
       ``(c) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Report on objectives and methods.--Beginning in the 
     fiscal year that is 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, and periodically thereafter, as determined 
     by the Secretary, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and 
     make publicly available, a report that includes--
       ``(A) a description of conservation outcome objectives that 
     are, to the maximum extent practicable, quantitative, 
     measurable, and time-bound for each program established under 
     subtitle D or H of the Food Security Act of 1985 and the 
     landscape conservation initiatives developed by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(B) a description of the approaches, tools, and methods 
     used to measure or model the conservation outcomes and 
     results and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of each such 
     program; and
       ``(C) guidance to the conservation project partners working 
     to implement conservation programs within a landscape-level 
     project that provides a description of the approaches, tools, 
     and methods the partners might consider using to measure and 
     model the conservation outcomes and results of their 
     projects.
       ``(2) Report on outcomes.--In conjunction with each of the 
     reports to Congress pursuant to section 7, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress, and make publicly available, a 
     report that includes--
       ``(A) an assessment of progress made towards achieving 
     conservation program objectives and anticipated outcomes and 
     results for each conservation program established under 
     subtitle D or H of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
     1985, as well as for such programs collectively, and the 
     landscape conservation initiatives developed by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(B) an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of each such 
     conservation program and initiative; and
       ``(C) recommendations, in light of the assessment and 
     evaluation, to improve program implementation and improve the 
     scientific and economic tools (including any new or revised 
     conservation practices, conservation enhancements, or 
     conservation planning tools) used to achieve stated natural 
     resource conservation and environmental objectives.
       ``(3) Coordination.--The Secretary may coordinate the 
     reports required under paragraphs (1) and (2) with any 
     reports developed as part of the conservation effects 
     assessment project authorized by section 8, whenever such 
     coordination is feasible and warranted, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Faso) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would provide the USDA the tools it needs to quantifiably measure 
conservation outcomes.
  These provisions are substantively the same as a bipartisan bill I 
introduced earlier this year with Representative Marcia Fudge.
  If included in the farm bill, my amendment would have the USDA 
measure, evaluate, and report on various conservation programs across 
the Nation. This information is necessary to help define, evaluate, and 
justify taxpayer return on conservation investment programs.
  Right now, the USDA can provide information on the impact of our 
conservation programs in terms of contracts and acres, but they lack 
the ability to provide the actual impact of these programs on important 
resource concerns. By ensuring that the USDA has all of the tools 
necessary to collect this information, we can better protect and 
preserve these programs into the future.
  The USDA's voluntary conservation programs are consistently helping 
farmers in initiatives that protect natural resources while also 
increasing farm productivity. This amendment would ensure that the USDA 
can continue to improve existing conservation programs and practices 
while also supporting our Nation's farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, we will also seek, in response to concerns that have 
been raised by the Farm Bureau, to, in conference, further refine the 
privacy provisions relating to the research activities that would take 
place under this bill to ensure that any personally identifiable 
information that would be contained within the analysis of conservation 
programs is further protected by the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FASO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faso has my commitment to work with 
him to address the Farm Bureau's concerns to get them to the point that 
they are okay with this. I support the gentleman's amendment under 
those terms.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the support for my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 115-679.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 250, strike line 25 and all that follows 
     through line 13 on page 253.
       Page 253, line 14, strike ``(G) 15-percent'' and insert 
     ``(F) 5-percent''.
       Page 254, line 25, strike ``15 percent'' and insert ``5 
     percent''.

[[Page H4187]]

       Page 256, line 17, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 256, after line 17 insert the following:
       (ii) by striking ``age six'' and inserting ``3 years of 
     age'', and
       Page 256, line 18, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       Page 257, line 2, strike ``or (G) a pregnant woman.'' and 
     insert ``(G) a married individual who is responsible for a 
     dependent individual and who resides in the household with a 
     spouse who complies with the requirements of paragraph 
     (1)(B); or (H) a pregnant woman.''.
       Page 257, line 9, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
       Page 257 line 25, strike the close quotation marks, the 
     comma, and ``and''.
       Page 257, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(iii) E-verify.--An employment and training program 
     designed by the State agency may not be approved unless such 
     program requires that each individual who participates in 
     such program is permitted to engage in employment in the 
     United States on the basis of the status of such individual 
     as determined under the employment verification system in 
     effect under section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a).'', and
       Page 260, strike lines 24 and 25, and insert the following:
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``age 6'' and inserting 
     ``age 3 or of an incapacitated person'', and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``of 5'' and inserting 
     ``of 2'',
       (B) in paragraph (7) by striking ``or'' at the end,
       (C) in paragraph (8) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or'', and
       (D) and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) is a married individual who is responsible for a 
     dependent individual and who resides in the household with a 
     spouse who complies with the requirements of subsection 
     (d)(1).'', and

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does two things: It 
increases from 20 percent to 70 percent the percentage of able-bodied 
adults in SNAP that would be required to comply with the work 
requirements in the bill, and it requires the use of the E-Verify 
system to assure that work training is available only to legal 
residents in this country who are legally entitled to work.
  H.R. 2 provides for a requirement that work-capable, nonemployed 
adults look for work or train for work in order to receive SNAP 
benefits. That is important. When Maine implemented a work requirement 
for able-bodied welfare recipients, they found that 84 percent of this 
population left the welfare rolls and, within a year, had doubled their 
effective pay. Alabama saw the same results.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2 would only engage about 20 percent of this 
population--20 percent. This amendment would boost the work 
participation rate to 70 percent of able-bodied adults in the program. 
It does so by implementing changes recommended by The Heritage 
Foundation.
  H.R. 2's work requirement affects parents of children under age 6. 
This amendment reduces the exemption to those with children under age 3 
but with an important difference: H.R. 2's requirements extend the work 
requirements to both spouses of children under the age of 6. This, in 
effect, is a marriage penalty that treats married couples as if they 
were single.
  The amendment I offer applies to only one spouse in the family, 
allowing the parents to share domestic and work responsibilities 
between themselves in any manner they feel is appropriate. This 
recognizes, encourages, and rewards marriage as the stable and 
nurturing environment that it is.
  H.R. 2 allows States to waive the work requirement in geographic 
areas defined by them with higher-than-normal unemployment rates above 
6 percent. This amendment deletes the waiver for an important reason: 
Where there is high unemployment, there is also more reason to 
encourage job training and job searching in order to equip recipients 
to compete in tighter job markets. Sidelining these individuals is 
self-defeating both for them and for the local economies.
  Also, the amendment removes the ability of States to define these 
geographic areas in a manner that would defeat the work requirement in 
the first place.
  H.R. 2 also allows States to exempt 15 percent of the able-bodied 
population from this work requirement. This amendment takes it to 5 
percent.
  Finally, this amendment requires that SNAP recipients be screened by 
the E-Verify system to assure that training is going only to those who 
are obeying our laws and are legally in this country. This requirement 
is essential to the enforcement of our immigration laws. Otherwise, we 
are spending taxpayer money to train illegal immigrants whom Federal 
law prohibits from being employed.
  This amendment transforms the work requirement in H.R. 2 from an 
empty and symbolic gesture covering just one-fifth of the able-bodied 
population receiving food stamps to more than 70 percent.
  It rewards, rather than penalizes, married couples and recognizes 
that the shared responsibilities of marriage are one of the single 
greatest factors in reducing poverty. Children born into homes with 
single parents are five times more likely to live in poverty. It is 
time our policies reflected the importance of marriage in protecting 
our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment by my good friend and colleague from California. I do 
that respectfully.
  H.R. 2 includes a substantive, enforceable, and supportive work 
requirement for work-capable adults 18 to 59. That is 20 percent of the 
population, 6 million individuals.
  Waivers and exemptions were modified and even tightened to ensure 
that only the most vulnerable work-capable adults were waived from the 
requirement. Waivers take into consideration those areas with 
excessively high rates of unemployment, while exemptions assist those 
who need short-term reprieve because of temporary hardship.
  Allowing for married couples to fulfill one requirement disengages 
recipients from the workforce. Work is more than just a paycheck. It 
provides dignity, social impact, opportunity, and creates the only path 
to self-sufficiency. One spouse fulfilling a 20-hour-per-week 
requirement does not lead to self-sufficiency. It does the exact 
opposite; it creates a lifetime dependency trap.
  H.R. 2 provides equitable treatment to all households when promoting 
work, including those that house cohabiting adults or married adults.
  Currently, 42 States choose not to use education and training funds 
to invest in childcare, which is an allowable investment. Reducing the 
age of the child from 6 to 3 is an undeniable barrier that 
disincentivizes employment more so than the current programming.
  Requiring education and training providers to use E-Verify on all 
participants who depend on them for services is just plain cruel. SNAP 
has eligibility standards in place, and illegal immigrants are not 
eligible for benefits. This is simply a means to shut out the very 
organizations and entities that provide these necessary supports for 
individuals in need.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso).
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the impetus behind the gentleman 
from California's amendment, but I think this amendment, if it were 
adopted, would threaten to destroy the carefully constructed efforts 
that we have endeavored to engage in in the committee to create 
something that was realistic and achievable.
  Lowering the age from 6 to 3 will make it much more difficult for 
many SNAP families to comply with the work requirements, and reducing 
the ability of a State to have a waiver of up to 15 percent of the 
population will also make it extremely difficult, by reducing that 
number down to 5 percent.
  So I think what the committee did was have a finely balanced effort 
to try

[[Page H4188]]

to move more able-bodied people into work and into training. While the 
gentleman's motivations are certainly fine in this regard and he is 
attempting to get at the right thing, we think that the amendment, if 
it were adopted, would actually destroy the carefully constructed 
effort that we have made to try to encourage work and responsibility.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Chairman, 42, 23, 89, 200, and 3. These 
numbers stand out for me. Forty-two million people will be impacted by 
the SNAP changes; 23 hearings; 89 witnesses, who didn't recommend the 
proposals that we are seeing today; $200 million spent on 10 pilot 
programs, of which we won't get the results in time; and 3 years old, 
the age that we are reducing down from 6 for parents to go to work.
  These numbers just don't add up. And one of my concerns is that great 
proposals might be put on the floor right now, but we had a process, 
and the process has been flawed, and now we have a flawed product.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to come back 
together in the great tradition of the Agriculture Committee and work 
on a bipartisan piece of legislation that moves Americans into work--
meaningful work.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to 
close.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my colleague on the House 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank again the gentleman from 
California for bringing forth this amendment and the gentleman from 
Texas for all of the work that he did on the bill.
  I think sometimes, rather than have hearings, you find out a lot more 
about these Federal programs and particularly the SNAP program if you 
talk to the local clerks at the convenience stores and the grocery 
stores and the income maintenance workers in the counties or the people 
who manage the low-income housing to find out what really is going on 
here.
  I will bring to light one in particular of the four provisions in the 
amendment: the idea that participants in training programs have to go 
through E-Verify.
  It has been said that you have to be a citizen to get SNAP anyway. I 
would suggest talking to some of the income maintenance workers or some 
of the people who talk to some of the people who use the SNAP program, 
and I think they will tell you that, whatever the official Federal law 
is, SNAP is routinely used by people who are not here legally.
  I think by requiring E-Verify for the training programs, we begin to 
go through the process of making sure that people who are in this 
country illegally are not taking advantage of taxpayer-funded programs.

                              {time}  1630

  I really wish we had more information on this topic, but, again, it 
is my belief that the average clerk in an average convenience store 
knows a lot more about the SNAP program than most Ph.D.s in sociology.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I ask 
support in opposing this amendment from my friend and colleague from 
California.
  To my friends across the aisle who keep asking for bipartisan 
opportunity, you blew the first one. That was in subcommittee, where we 
could have amendments, and we are not seeing amendments from Members 
here. So there has been plenty of opportunity for bipartisan work.
  I do appreciate the recommendations that my Democratic friends made 
in writing to both the ranking member and the chairman. All of those 
points and all the titles, I believe, were--I know in the nutrition 
title they were all incorporated into the base bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) to 
provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other 
programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________