[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13951-13967]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 687, SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND 
 EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
   H.R. 1526, RESTORING HEALTHY FORESTS FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ACT; 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3102, NUTRITION REFORM AND WORK 
            OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2013; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 351

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 687) to facilitate the efficient extraction of 
     mineral resources in southeast Arizona by authorizing and 
     directing an exchange of Federal and non-Federal land, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House

[[Page 13952]]

     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to 
     restore employment and educational opportunities in, and 
     improve the economic stability of, counties containing 
     National Forest System land, while also reducing Forest 
     Service management costs, by ensuring that such counties have 
     a dependable source of revenue from National Forest System 
     land, to provide a temporary extension of the Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 113-21, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part C of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008; and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And congratulations 
to the Clerk for the long reading of the rule.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my dear 
friend--and I spent a lot of time with him yesterday--pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 351 provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 687 and H.R. 1526, and provides a closed rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3102.
  Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills is H.R. 687, the Southeast 
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This bill permits a land 
conveyance which will lead to the development of important copper 
deposits in Arizona that is estimated to create 3,700 jobs and $60 
billion worth of economic opportunity. That is a great reason to be on 
the floor on behalf of the Republican Party of the United States of 
America.
  We are on the floor today because people in Arizona, on a bipartisan 
basis, have asked that their elected representatives, on a bipartisan 
basis, come to the United States Government and ask for swapping lands 
that will result in 3,700 American jobs--probably about 3,700 jobs in 
Arizona--and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. What a 
great reason for Paul Gosar and Doc Hastings, the chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee, to approach the Rules Committee about 
getting that bill on the floor today.
  We hear over and over and over and over about jobs and job creation 
for the middle class. Well, let me tell you what, Mr. Speaker, 3,700 
jobs for the middle class in Arizona and up to $60 billion worth of 
economic opportunity are available to Members of Congress today where 
they can make a decision about what they want to vote on. I would 
submit to you the Republican Party is for those 3,700 middle class 
jobs.
  The second bill before us today is H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy 
Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This legislation will improve the 
health of our Nation's forests by promoting effective forest management 
while simultaneously strengthening a timber sales revenue-sharing 
program which is, once again, designed to allow rural communities to 
benefit from their local natural resources.
  I will go back and say it again. The reason why we are on the floor 
today is that the Republican Party wants local, rural communities to 
have a part of their cost sharing with the money that would come in to 
help rural communities to benefit from what sits in their own back 
yard, their own natural resources, which we as Republicans understand 
is best admired and best taken care of when local people take care of 
their own needs. Point two why the Republican Party is on the floor of 
the House of Representatives today: for local rural communities.
  The final bill considered in this rule is H.R. 3102, the Nutrition 
Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This vital legislation reforms--and I 
add the word ``reforms'' because it needs reform--reforms our Nation's 
nutrition programs, saving taxpayers about $40 billion while 
maintaining critical benefits to helping America's neediest families, 
seniors, children, and veterans. H.R. 3102 reinforces our country's 
commitment to those who cannot help themselves while working to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  What is the waste, fraud, and abuse? It is many, many people who 
should not be receiving these needy items--that should be reserved for 
those who need it the most--people who are able-bodied; and we should 
not extend those benefits to people who actually can take care of 
themselves.
  So you're going to hear a robust argument today that will take 
place--it took place for hours yesterday in the Rules Committee as we 
considered amendments after amendments, ideas after ideas. Each and 
every person, whether they be Republican or Democrat, were treated with 
fairness and the opportunity to equally present their ideas with the 
knowledge that there was a committee, the Rules Committee, on a 
bipartisan basis, that was available and ready to engage each of those 
Members on their ideas that are called amendments. That is why we are 
on the floor of the House of Representatives today.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule--we will talk a little bit 
more about it--and to support the underlying legislation. And of course 
we will talk about that more during this hour.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the committee, for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the people's House. Today, the 
Republican leadership is bringing to the floor one of the most 
heartless pieces of legislation I have ever seen, a bill to take food 
away from some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

[[Page 13953]]

  After a $20 billion cut was voted down by the House in June, the 
Republican leadership has decided to double down on the cruelty with a 
$40 billion cut. It is terrible policy wrapped in a terrible process.
  This is a 109-page bill that would cut the SNAP program, cut billions 
of dollars and make major changes to the way SNAP works; and there 
hasn't been a single hearing, not a single markup. It didn't even go 
through the Agriculture Committee. And today it's being brought to the 
floor under a closed rule. It was just cooked up in the majority 
leader's office as some sort of Heritage Foundation fever dream.
  CBO says that the bill would cut 3.8 million low-income people from 
SNAP in 2014 and millions more in the following years. These are some 
of America's poorest adults, as well as many low-income children, 
seniors, and families that work for low wages. Let me say that again, 
Mr. Speaker, so there's no confusion. People who work but who don't 
make enough to feed their families will be cut from this program.
  The biggest cut affects millions of unemployed, childless adults who 
live in areas of high unemployment. These are poor people. Many don't 
have the skills or education they need to find a job. It is a group 
whose average income is about $2,500 a year. And for most, SNAP is the 
only government assistance that they receive.
  Now, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families 
would also lose their free school meals; and 170,000 unemployed 
veterans will lose their SNAP benefits as well. Let me repeat: 170,000 
veterans will lose their benefits. These are the people who have served 
our country. How can you do that?
  Mr. Speaker, we are 45 years and a million miles away from the War on 
Poverty. The Republican leadership has instead launched a war on poor 
people.
  This bill is not about reform. It is not about making SNAP a better, 
stronger program.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be poor in America. It is not a 
glamorous life. It is a struggle just to make it through the day. The 
average SNAP benefit is $1.50 per meal. Housing costs, transportation 
costs, childcare costs, they all add up.
  You know, fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. Think of 
people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson. And I know that a lot of 
Republicans--moderates and conservatives--are very nervous about this 
bill. So I would say to them: don't do this. Please don't do this. 
Don't go along with cutting food benefits to millions of struggling 
families. Don't make hundreds of thousands of children and seniors and 
veterans go hungry. Don't put the food banks and church pantries in 
your districts into an even deeper hole. The people who rely on SNAP to 
feed their families struggle every single day. Please don't make their 
lives even harder. It is not too late. We do not need to pass this bill 
in order to go to conference on the farm bill.

                              {time}  1300

  I would urge my colleagues to search their consciences and to vote 
against this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who serves on the Natural 
Resources Committee and the Budget Committee, from Oak Grove, 
California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman so much for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate on the other side, I think 
there's a misunderstanding on the nutrition bill. It doesn't cut people 
off from food stamps. What it does is simply ask that they either work, 
look for work, or train for work while they're receiving these 
benefits.
  This is $80 billion a year. That's about $760 from the taxes of every 
average family in America. I think that they have a right as a 
condition of extending that aid to ask that those on it do everything 
they can to get off of it.
  I am here today to rise particularly in strong support of H.R. 1526 
that this rule also brings to the floor, the Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act.
  I represent the communities of the Sierra Nevadas that have just been 
devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire that has incinerated some 400 
square miles of forestland.
  Federal environmental regulations have forced an 80 percent drop in 
timber harvests in this region over the past 30 years, despite urgent 
warnings from foresters that the excess timber would either be carried 
out or burned out. As the timber harvests have declined, the acreage 
burned has increased contemporaneously and proportionately. The great 
irony, of course, is that there is nothing more environmentally 
devastating to a forest than a forest fire.
  In addition to reporting out H.R. 1526 that restores sound forest 
management practices in the future that will reduce or prevent such 
catastrophes in the future, the rule makes in order emergency 
amendments to deal with the aftermath of this fire.
  An estimated 1 billion board feet of dead timber can be salvaged out 
of the forest if, and only if, we act soon. Within a year, the timber 
will become unsalvageable.
  This measure sets aside the litigation that routinely delays these 
salvage sales until the timer simple becomes worthless. This will mean 
a surge of employment in the mountain communities that have been 
devastated by this fire and a new stream of revenue for the Federal 
Government that would otherwise be lost.
  I want to thank the Rules Committee for acting on this imperative, 
and I look forward to the debate and passage of the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the 
bill made in order on this rule, H.R. 3102, which is just another 
example of the Republican majority's misplaced priorities.
  I have been working on this farm bill for nearly 4 years. From the 
beginning, I've said that I think it is possible to find some middle 
ground and to make reasonable, responsible reforms in nutrition 
programs. Unfortunately, this bill is neither reasonable nor 
responsible.
  The House failed to pass the Agriculture Committee's bipartisan farm 
bill because it was hijacked with partisan amendments on the floor, 
amendments that are included in this bill that we are considering here 
today. This bill goes even further by eliminating State-requested 
waivers to exempt able-bodied adults without dependents in high 
unemployment areas from SNAP's current work requirements.
  To be clear, these waivers are granted only at the request of the 
States. They are under no requirement to apply and may choose to opt 
out in the future. There is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the other 
side of the aisle here, because these waivers have been requested by 
both Republican and Democratic Governors. In fact, a majority of the 
Republican Governors have asked to waive these current work 
requirements.
  This notion that we have to pass this bill, as Mr. McGovern said, to 
go to conference is not true. The House passed H.R. 2642, which can be 
conferenced with the Senate, and there's no reason to pass this bill 
here today other than to placate some people that want to make a point. 
This bill isn't going anyplace in the Senate, the President wouldn't 
sign it, so I don't know what we are doing.
  In July, a broad coalition of more than 500 organizations expressed 
their opposition to splitting this farm bill. Senator Bob Dole 
expressed his opposition recently to doing it. In a letter to House 
Members, the American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman 
said:

       We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition 
     title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill 
     that can be

[[Page 13954]]

     successfully conferenced with the Senate's version, approved 
     by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President.

  All this bill is going to do is make our job harder, if not 
impossible, to pass a new farm bill.
  I strongly oppose this rule and the bill and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota coming down and giving us 
his thoughts on what we are attempting to do today. The bottom line is 
that what we are going to do is we are going to make natural and, I 
believe, reasonable changes to the nutrition program that will help 
sustain it. Rather than growing and growing and growing and growing the 
amount of money that's necessary to sustain this, we are going to put 
it into a perspective where it is available and ready for the neediest 
of Americans, which is what the food stamp program really is all about.
  In fact, we are here to make sure that when our great chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas, goes to a conference with the 
United States Senate that we give him a full portfolio of the thoughts 
and ideas about the changes that we would make to the entire 
agriculture bill. Chairman Lucas is one of the most awesome members of 
our conference and who, yesterday, spent a number of hours with us, not 
just to get us to understand what we are trying to do, but why we are 
trying to do what we are doing. It means that we will arm him with the 
available content to go to the conference with the Senate to make the 
farm bill that includes the nutrition program even better and 
sustainable.
  I think the gentleman, Mr. McClintock, said it best, and that is that 
what we are trying to do is to make sure that the neediest Americans 
get what they want and need. But it simply and, I believe, carefully 
says, where you're able-bodied and on food stamps, you have got to be 
looking for work also. You have to make sure that you're a part of 
trying to go and better your life, not using the food stamp program as 
an alternative to the hard work which will help make you and perhaps 
your family, but certainly your community and your country even 
stronger. So it becomes an incentive to do exactly that.
  Just like what we did in welfare reform in the early nineties where, 
in welfare reform, jobs became a substitute and really a demand that 
you needed to go look for a job, millions of people took us up on that 
and bettered their life, that's what we are trying to do now. There are 
still jobs available in America. There are still jobs available. They 
might not be the job that you would want to stay in for the rest of 
your life, but it means that you need to go and actively participate, 
because there are those behind, so to speak, the program that are the 
neediest of most Americans.
  I will tell you that I understand some of those people, some of these 
people that live within the district that I represent in Texas, but I 
also understand them firsthand in dealing with disabled people and 
families with disabled children and families with disabled adults. 
Where a person cannot take care of themselves, we are not putting that 
at risk at all. Where a person cannot take care of themselves and needs 
the benefits of the community, in this case a nutrition program, we 
need to make sure that there is more money that is available to them.
  There was a discussion about the average cost not being very much, 
and I think that's a true statement. We would like to increase the 
money for more and better food, including fruits and vegetables and 
other items, in the future, but the only way we can do this is if we 
are aiming at the people who need it the most.
  That's where this great Nation will continue. Not only through their 
food banks that are available across the country because of local 
people getting involved, but also the competition that comes from the 
Federal Government to help work with them to better the lives, the 
nutrition, of children and seniors and veterans and families that need 
them the most. That's what this is trying to do to reform that program.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Republican talking points aside, according 
to CBO, this bill, if passed, will result in 3.8 million people losing 
their benefits, including 170,000 veterans. That is shameful.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the waivers, but I remind 
him that his Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has requested waivers on a 
number of occasions because people haven't been able to find jobs in 
his State of Texas. So if you've got a problem with the waivers, you 
ought to talk to your own Governor.
  At this point, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for a 
unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Adam, a disabled man from Ohio, a face of hunger in 
America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FUDGE. ``There's been days when I have not had a good meal.''
  Adam has been disabled his entire life. He lives on his own off of 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments and receives $136 a month 
in food stamps.
  ``Where I live, I don't have a kitchen. I have a toaster oven and a 
microwave. I try to make them (food stamps) last a month, but it's 
really hard to do. I would say about three weeks or less, that's about 
all they last. I do the very best I can to budget, but it's hard. 
Everything's so expensive in the stores, you really can't gauge how 
much you're going to spend.
  ``My mom told me not to work, because my check will get cut. And then 
if they (Social Security) see me working, and I'm not making enough to 
live on while I'm working, then I'm pretty much in the hole. And I 
don't want to put myself in that position. And even though I'm on 
benefits, it's only about $8,055 a year.
  ``I'm really happy for this place because it really helps. At the end 
of the month when I don't have any food, or I need groceries, I can 
come at the end of the month and get food. I always buy food first. I 
don't ever want to run out, but sometimes I do run out of food, and 
that's why I come here.
  ``It makes me feel depressed when I don't have anything to eat.''
  Source: Ohio Association of Food Banks
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
O'Rourke) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record references to pages 1 through 4 of report S. 2201 from the U.S. 
Census Bureau showing that 329 Active Duty military families at Fort 
Bliss and Fort Hood in Texas rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Dorothy, a grandmother from a State very near 
Minnesota--South Dakota--and she represents the face of hunger. Here 
she is with her family.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ELLISON. ``I'm a descendent of Crazy Horse, and I live in a 
trailer on our ancestral land in Wounded Knee. Life here in the winter 
is very hard. Our water pump freezes, so we have to haul water from a 
half-mile away. Cold air comes through the broken windows, and it's 
hard to heat the trailer. Because we can't afford snow tires to drive 
over the five-foot snowdrifts, I have to take the little money I have 
and pay someone $20 to drive me to the only grocery store on the 
reservation, 45 minutes away.
  ``Many people here struggle like I do. There are lots of gangs, 
violence and alcoholism and almost no jobs here. The moccasin factory 
closed down. So did the fishhook factory. My husband used to be able to 
take care of us, but not anymore.
  ``We are raising 7 grandchildren: 5 from my daughter, who died at 30 
of cardiac arrest, and 2 from a daughter-in-law, who just left her

[[Page 13955]]

kids with us one night and never came back. Because I have the 
grandkids, I get welfare and food stamps. Otherwise, I couldn't feed my 
family. Buying food comes first. Then I pay for electricity, so we can 
cook with the microwave and hot plate and run the space heaters to warm 
the trailer.
  ``Food is so expensive on the reservation, and our food stamps only 
last about two weeks. When they run out, I go out and sell beadwork 
really cheap, just so I can continue to feed my family. But there 
aren't many tourists in winter, so we eat lots of crackers (we call 
them Indian potato chips) because they are filling and we won't be 
hungry.
  ``Life on the reservation changed a lot since the buffalo are all but 
gone. So many people on the reservation have replaced buffalo meat with 
processed foods, and diabetes has become a big problem. I don't want to 
have my limbs cut off, so I try to eat healthy. During the growing 
season, I plant a vegetable garden with things I can store for the 
winter. I'm learning a lot every year about how to take care of my 
garden. The only thing I really have a problem with is that I can't 
stop the grasshoppers from eating everything. This year they didn't eat 
my squash, so we are eating a whole lot of squash soup.
  ``It upsets me that so many people on the reservation use their food 
stamps to buy junk food instead of healthy food. I think that everyone 
on the reservation should have a small garden to feed themselves and 
eat healthy. I also think the government should bring the buffalo back. 
When our people ate buffalo every day, we were strong.''
  Source: Mazon
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Capps) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Congressional Record the story of Rosemary. She is a grandmother from 
Little Rock, Arkansas. She is a face of hunger today in the United 
States of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Rosemary has full custody of her three grandchildren, 
whom she has been caring for since her daughter passed away from cancer 
several years ago. Rosemary used to work full-time in healthcare but 
has been unable to work in recent years due to illness and family 
responsibilities. She struggles financially to care for her 
grandchildren. She sold her home and moved into a smaller apartment to 
cut expenses but relies on SNAP to help feed her family. ``I'm used to 
working, buying what I need. I'm not used to doing without and I didn't 
want to accept it.'' She is very grateful for the assistance. Without 
SNAP, her grandkids ``probably wouldn't have food to eat.''
  Source: Share Our Strength
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) for a unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would advise Members that although a unanimous consent 
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative 
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure. 
Embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate and can become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded for that purpose.
  The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be 
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members 
to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form.
  The gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Beatrize, a mother from Camden, New Jersey, a face 
of hunger. This is her child.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Beatrize is a 24-year-old single mother of one young 
son. She is from Camden, NJ and is a member of Witnesses to Hunger, a 
research and advocacy project that is part of the Center for Hunger-
Free Communities at Drexel University.
  Beatrize struggles to make ends meet while working 40 hours a week at 
a convenience store. SNAP helps Beatrize makes ends meet because even 
while working full-time she does not make enough to keep food on the 
table. Beatrize dreams of earning her surgical technologist 
certification but the work and cost of school would put more strain on 
her household.
  Source: Drexel University Center for Hunger-Free Communities
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Shellie, an unemployed mother with two children, 
from Ohio, a face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. ``Every single day, I get up and make the most of that 
day, because that's what moms do.''
  Shellie is currently living with her two teenage children in a hotel 
room. They had to move out of the house they were renting after it was 
condemned because of black mold.
  ``I feel sorry for my kids because times are harder now than they've 
ever been. You know, I didn't have to live like this as a child. We 
didn't live in hotel rooms. We never went without. And you know, my 
kids are going without. At the end of the month, I have to tell them, 
`all I have is dinner food,' because there's nothing to put on the 
table for breakfast or lunch.
  ``It's awful, disheartening. I feel like a complete loser right now, 
to be honest. Because I can't do for my kids like I should be. I can't 
provide for them like I'm used to providing. I try to look for work, 
but I can't get hired anywhere. There's no jobs in Vermilion, there's 
not.
  ``I know Grace's Kitchen has been a blessing to me. We get a lot of 
fresh fruit, we get breads. That's a treat, because we don't get fresh 
fruit at home because it's so expensive. So when we have that the kids 
are like `yeah, fruit, this is awesome!'
  ``Trust me, America is very concerned about it [cuts to food stamps]. 
They do something like that, that's saying you don't care about your 
children. Really? You run the country but you don't care about the kids 
here? They're our future. They're our next presidents, they're our next 
nurses, they're our next doctors, they're next. How dare you take from 
them. It's not right. You've never known hunger, to take something away 
like that. You've never been hungry.
  ``If you'd ever been hungry you know you don't take away things like 
that.''
  Source: Ohio Association of Food Banks
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the Record the story of Melinda, a cancer survivor and single mother 
from Texas, a face of hunger.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. ``I felt like I pulled a muscle in my side. And one 
morning the pain was just unbearable and I actually went to the 
hospital. Told my kids, `It's nothing. We'll be in and out. I'm just 
going to get some medicine for this.'
  ``The breathing was so bad the doctors wanted to make sure that I 
wasn't actually having a heart attack . . . So they did a scan on me. 
That's when they told me that I had a tumor and somehow it collapsed my 
lung. And that's when they told me I had lymphoma.
  ``So I was actually in the hospital for two months.''
  [Melinda is now recovering and in remission. She lost her job and 
struggles as a single mom to provide for her family.]
  ``I would see people in the line and I would see them using the food 
stamps and I was just like `man I wish that . . . that would help me so 
much.'''
  [Melinda quickly started receiving SNAP benefits for her family of 
four.]
  ``It's all I've ever cared about is food on the table for my kids and 
that's it. And that's exactly what--that's been taken care of. It helps 
me out so much just knowing that's a cost that I don't have to worry 
about.
  ``You know when I was paying cash it was just a lot more different 
junk food and this time around it is a lot more fruits and vegetables. 
It opened my eyes. You need that assistance if it's really going to 
help you out and you know you're going to do right with it--go for it. 
Just don't give up.
  ``I'm Melinda and thank you for feeding America.''
  Source: Feeding America
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

[[Page 13956]]


  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
into the Record the story of Steven, a father from San Francisco, 
California, the face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE of California. For Steven, the most significant benefit he 
realized was to be able to access TANF, SNAP, and school meals during 
one trip to the Department of Human Services. For Steven, he was 
unemployed and looking for work, he was struggling with alcohol and 
drug addiction, he had experienced some serious family problems and was 
in sole custody of his daughter, and he was desperate to turn his life 
around. The benefits he received at this point in his life proved to be 
one of the major catalysts that allowed him to get back on his feet. 
Now, he is in the final process of finding a job, he has addressed his 
issues with drug and alcohol use, and he is very thankful for the 
support he received (both from SNAP benefits and other forms of 
support), to have the strength to focus on the things he needed to do 
to get his life back together and find a job. He couldn't have done 
this without the simple and efficient process to receive TANF, SNAP, 
and school meals. If the SNAP cuts go through, a person like Steven 
would not be able to qualify categorical eligibility.
  Source: St. Anthony's (San Francisco)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Jennifer, a mother from New Mexico, a face of 
hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. ``Just as my time in a domestic violence shelter was 
about up, I got lucky. A spot opened up in a two-year transitional 
housing program in Santa Fe. It felt like a second chance at life. 
Within a couple of years of being there, I saved enough money to buy a 
mobile home. I had a great full-time job at the Boys and Girls Club 
through AmeriCorps. I was working my way through college to go into 
juvenile probation. It felt like I'd gotten my independence back. Then 
the funding for my job was cut and I became unemployed.
  ``For months, I couldn't find a full-time job. I was willing to take 
anything. I can lay cement and wait tables. I found enough part-time 
work to pay the rent on the mobile home lot--that was my priority so we 
wouldn't be evicted--but I didn't earn enough part-time to pay for 
anything else. I don't know why the utilities weren't cut off--I didn't 
pay those bills for months. Thank goodness I get food stamps. 
Otherwise, we wouldn't eat.
  ``I use my food stamps to buy things that I know will fill my kids 
up. We drink a lot of milk and eat a lot of bread and buy a few cases 
of ramen every month. I find `buy one get one free' sales so we can buy 
some meat, throw it into a pot with cream of mushroom soup, and get 
three days of meals out of it. My son gets a backpack snack sent home 
with him once a week from school. That's really good.
  ``By the last week of the month, we run out of food. That's when I 
worry where our next meal is coming from. What am I supposed to do? I 
do what I have got to do to feed my kids and have had to do things I'm 
not proud of. There have been times where I've gone to the grocery 
store and put a block of cheese or beans in my purse and gone through 
the check out line paying only for eggs and a loaf of bread. If I 
didn't do that, my kids would go to bed hungry and I'd never let that 
happen. I remember when people used to send their kids to bed without 
dinner, out of punishment, and that has stayed with me. I can't 
knowingly let any child go without heat, go without food. I've taken 
homeless children into the house and given them my son's bed. I've put 
food in a Tupperware and shared it with others.
  ``I don't know how I made it through the months, but I did. I 
recently got a full-time job in retail, but every day is a climb. Food 
is still a struggle. Paying for gas to get to work is a struggle. 
Having a little cash so my son can have socks or we can have laundry 
soap is a struggle. I know a lot of people that are struggling just 
like us. I get so upset when I see the TV commercials asking us to help 
people overseas--everywhere else, but here. Doesn't everybody realize 
we have starving children in America? Shouldn't we take care of 
Americans first?''
  Source: Mazon
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the Congressional Record the story of Stephanie, a mother from Roanoke, 
Virginia, a face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Raising two young girls on her own after leaving a 
domestic violence situation and spending six months in a shelter with 
her two young daughters, 41-year-old Stephanie currently works full-
time in a medical office while her girls are in daycare/pre-school. She 
wants her kids to understand the importance of hard work. She lives 
frugally, adhering to a strict budget, using no credit cards. She also 
looks for fun things to do that will not cost her a lot of money so her 
daughters can enjoy life as much as possible. When they can afford to 
go out to eat as a treat, she goes to Denny's because they have a deal 
where 2 kids eat free with 1 parent. She was really grateful for that. 
SNAP is essential for her to feed herself and her children and be able 
to cover (barely) monthly expenses. This month was particularly hard 
because a window in their home broke during a storm and they don't have 
extra money for unexpected expenses. When things like that happen she 
has to scramble to find the money. She has relied on the program on and 
off for years, and believes without SNAP she and her daughters would be 
back in a shelter. She wants elected officials to understand that SNAP 
helps working families.
  ``I worry about everything, I worry about my daughter growing up 
stable. I especially worry about her getting the supplemental food 
program at school, that helps a lot too. If it wasn't for these 
programs I don't know what I would do. [I get] $300 a month in food 
stamps, it helps tremendously.''
  Source: Share Our Strength
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cohen) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Naquila, a mother from Little Rock, Arkansas, just 
west of Memphis, a face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COHEN. Naquila has struggled most of her adult life to support 
her children. She has 12-year-old twins and a 4-year-old boy. When her 
twins were younger, she worked two jobs to support her family but 
barely got by. (She did not qualify for any benefits at the time.) 
There were times that her utilities/electricity was cut off because she 
failed to pay the bills on time. She would skip breakfast and lunch and 
just eat a small dinner to ensure there was enough food for her kids, 
but even then, they had to improvise to make what little food supplies 
they had last the week. Things finally started to look up when she got 
a job, but she did not qualify for maternity leave when she had her 
third child, so received SNAP benefits during her six week maternity 
leave. Naquila worked two jobs to try and support her family; referring 
to a time in her life when she did not benefit from SNAP or any other 
form of assistance.
  ``I was making too much to get food stamps but I wasn't making enough 
to keep a sufficient amount of food in my home when it was me with my 
two kids. It was hard. It was really hard. We survived off of things 
like grilled cheese and noodles, things that I could afford to buy for 
less than $1.
  ``Sometimes water would be turned off. We would have to go stay with 
my mom until I got the money up to pay the water bill. Sometimes the 
lights would get turned off and I would have the money to pay it but I 
didn't have the time to pay it, because I was working.
  ``I found somewhere where I could work from 8-4:30 and make it home 
in time enough to cook a good meal. I would go and get family packs of 
chicken or family packs of ground beef and cook that, cook large enough 
amounts so we could eat on it for two days, or three days, or however 
long it lasted. Before that we ate things like hot dogs, bologna 
sandwiches, crackers and cheese. It wasn't really stuff with substance. 
I knew one of my supervisors had her own garden, so she would bring 
squash and things like that out of her garden that she had too much of 
and we ate that, so that was good.
  ``There were days when I would go and not even take lunch. I would do 
things like I would

[[Page 13957]]

fix them a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but I would make it on 1 
piece of bread and fold it. I would do the little cans of beanie babies 
and cut hot dogs up for them, and maybe I would only have the hot dog. 
I would give them spaghetti and corn, and I might only eat corn, or 
whatever it was that I would have to do to make it so that they could 
have more.
  ``There were a lot of nights that I came home and just cried. It was 
a lot of times when I did not know where I was getting the strength to 
keep going, but I knew that I had to.''
  Source: Share Our Strength
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert into the Record the story of Nathan, a veteran from Rapid City, 
South Dakota, a face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. ``I joined the Army because it allowed 
us to pay our bills above and beyond. There was comfort knowing that we 
had a savings account and if something came up we could fix it. That's 
no longer the case.
  ``I did a one-year tour in Iraq. I trained as a medic and dreamed of 
becoming a doctor. But when I got injured, my dreams were slammed into 
the ground. I always liked cooking, so the Veterans' Administration 
sent me to the New England Culinary School in Vermont to become a 
classically trained chef. I figured that by going to a pretty 
prestigious school, people would fly out the doors to hire me. But in 
this horrible economy, the only jobs I've been offered pay the same as 
McDonald's. But I can't support my family on that. So when my wife was 
offered part-time work, we decided that she should take it so I could 
continue looking for a position as a fine dining chef.
  ``Now I'm Mr. Mom. It's taxing on my pride, but even more taxing on 
my pocketbook. My wife only makes about 75% of what we need to make 
ends meet. To help us make up the difference, my mother-in-law has gone 
back to work. And instead of using her retirement funds on herself, 
she's putting them into our family.
  ``It's horrible to think that I was protecting a country that can't 
provide its citizens with good-paying jobs so they can afford their own 
food. Our food stamps don't cover what we need, but if we didn't get 
them, we'd be--for lack of a better word--screwed. We couldn't pay the 
mortgage or our car payment; if our car broke down, we couldn't afford 
to fix it. When I shop for food now, I buy what's on sale rather than 
what I want. I can either buy one red pepper at $1.69 for one person's 
fajita or 6 boxes of macaroni at $1.69 that feeds the whole family 6 
times.
  ``Macaroni is not what we'd like to give our kids, but for now, it's 
about getting enough to eat rather than eating well. I know that what 
they're ingesting today is going to cause them health problems down the 
road. The kids have already gained weight by eating more processed 
foods, which is kind of funny when you're talking about a lack of food.
  ``I dream of making enough money so I can buy fresh, quality produce 
with cash at the farmers market instead of buying Hamburger Helper with 
food stamps. When I pull out the food stamp card, I think that everyone 
looks at you funny. Well, I am not really sure that most people know 
what the food stamp card looks like, but I do. Taking out the food 
stamp card makes me feel poor.''
  Source: Mazon
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
into the Record the story of Lorraine, a mother from Sarasota, Florida, 
and Gwendolyn Friedman, a senior citizen from Tampa, Florida, faces of 
hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. ``I was at the supermarket checkout line when 
the cashier asked me if I wanted to make a donation for the needy.
  ``I would have liked to, but instead, I flashed my food stamps card 
and shook my head, saying: `I can't. This time, I'm the needy.'
  ``The poor guy blushed and mumbled an apology. I suppose he must have 
felt bad for me.
  ```It's okay,' I said. `I'm glad to have the help.'
  ``That day, almost three years ago now, I realized that I didn't look 
like the type of person the cashier would have expected to be on food 
stamps. On other trips to the grocery store I had begun to notice that 
I was not alone. Well-dressed women ahead of me at the checkout would 
try to swipe their EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card 
inconspicuously, but I immediately recognized it. I wanted so badly to 
tell them not to be embarrassed. We were among the additional 20 
million Americans who have had to go on Food Stamps since the 
recession. And my girls were among the 17 million children in this 
country who could be labeled as `food insecure,' meaning they do not 
know when or where their next meal will come.


                          RECESSION HITS HOME

  ``I was a middle class hard-working professional, until my marriage 
ended around the same time as the recession hit. The publications I 
wrote for closed down or ran out of funding. I suddenly became the 
unemployed single mami of two girls, ages 4 and 7.
  ``I moved out of our 4-bedroom family home with a pool to a small 
rental apartment, with my kids. My ex-husband also had been out of work 
and we'd gone through our savings. I had little income and a lot of 
debt. In order to pay the bills and buy groceries while I job-hunted, I 
had to resort to selling my jewelry, including family heirlooms, my 
wedding band, and gifts that my girls received when they were born. 
That was difficult and emotional. I held back the tears as the jeweler 
appraised my belongings, while my 4-year-old entertained herself 
admiring the sparkly gems in the store, unaware of what was happening.


                     SELLING OFF PRIZED POSSESSIONS

  ``I sold my brand-name handbags, shoes, and clothes on eBay. Then I 
discovered direct sales. I peddled everything from jewelry to 
cosmetics, but it seemed these were difficult times for many. I 
couldn't make enough income to cover the basics. I kept hoping I would 
soon find work again as a writer and that things would get better.
  ``But nothing changed despite my best job-seeking efforts. 
Newspapers, which had been my bread and butter since arriving in the 
U.S. in 2004, kept laying off staff. The recession was in full swing. I 
was forced to accept handouts from friends and family. Around that 
time, I noticed that my neighbor, a mom of three boys, kept inviting my 
kids over for dinner. One day I discovered that it was because my girls 
had mentioned that our fridge was always empty. I was running out of 
options. I needed to feed my children.
  ``A close friend suggested I apply for food stamps. His family had 
used them when they arrived in the U.S. from Cuba a few years back, 
until they got on their feet. At first I was appalled. I always 
imagined food stamps were only for the poor and the homeless. I 
couldn't conceive that someone like me could qualify. Then I realized: 
I was poor! That night, thinking of my girls, I piggybacked off of the 
neighbors' wireless signal and Googled `how to apply for food stamps.'
  ``A few weeks later, it was a huge relief to trudge up the stairs to 
my apartment with my happy kids, carrying bags of fresh groceries. It 
felt better than Christmas.
  ``These are tough times, and I learned the hard way that pride 
doesn't put a warm meal on the table, but that The United States 
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) does.''
  Source: MomsRising

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record the story of Marvin, a disabled man from Atlanta, Georgia--a 
face of hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH. ``My name is Marvin and I live in Atlanta.
  You should never let your disabilities get in the way.''
  [Marvin is partially deaf and blind. He supports himself by cleaning 
windows for local businesses.]
  ``Give me a cheap roll of paper towels and tell me how much you want 
to pay me to do them--those windows will be spotless.''
  [Marvin was struck by a car while walking home from work.]
  ``I thought my life was over with.
  I had a lot of fear, but I had a lot of faith at the same time.''
  [He is unable to work as he recovers from the accident.]

[[Page 13958]]

  ``I got on food stamps.
  I don't know about everybody else but I did feel embarrassed about 
it--having food stamps.
  I had no choice. I . . . no choice at all. But once I tried it and 
I'm not embarrassed anymore because I'm able to eat everything like 
everyone else.
  Well I'm going to keep going or give up. I refuse . . . It's not in 
me. I can't give up.
  Once I go back to work I'll be happy.
  I think we're all blessed in many ways.''
  Source: Feeding America
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my party and I do understand that our country has for 5 
years gone through very difficult times. Our party and the American 
people, through various ways, have been asking this administration and 
the Democratic Party to please allow us to have an opportunity with 
more jobs being available in the United States of America. The 
Democratic Party, up to and including the President of the United 
States, is more interested in an out-of-balance environmental policy 
that is placing a demand on the consumers to pay double the prices that 
they did before the President came into office for gasoline and double 
the prices of food and the availability of jobs.
  Just as we are here to talk about, in Arizona, 3,700 new jobs, we've 
tried to do this with the XL pipeline, which would extend across a 
number of States. I don't know if some of the faces of hunger were 
included in those that could be hired as a result of the XL pipeline, 
but, every day, there are Americans who are losing their jobs and who 
are losing careers because of the policies of our President, Barack 
Obama, and the Democrats--elected Members of Congress--who insist on 
having rules and regulations, up to and including a government-run 
health care plan, which is diminishing careers and opportunities for 
people to have health care and full-time jobs.
  If it weren't true, someone would say it was just a cruel joke; but 
the bottom line is that the business community all across America is 
now changing the rules of employment from 40-hour workweeks to 30 or 
even 20. This is happening directly as a result of the policies of the 
people who complain most about the middle class not having jobs. It is 
perpetrated exactly on a partisan basis--with zero Republicans 
participating--to have rules, regulations, and a government-run health 
care system that is unemploying America, only to turn around later to 
find out: so we've got to spend more money to take care of people who 
don't have jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, there are divides in our country. There are divides 
between the parties, but, today, the Republican Party is on the floor 
trying to say that we need to change the law so that local communities 
that have forests in their backyards can share in the money, that 
Washington can't have it only--you've got to share with them. We are 
here to say that we are for a land swap that people in Arizona 
completely agree with. They sent their elected Representatives here on 
an elected citizenry basis to come and say: we'd like 3,700 more jobs 
in Arizona, $60 billion worth of economic activity; and we are here 
today to say: because we have such expanding roles of people who are 
hungry in America and who are filing to get food stamps, we need to be 
able to set a mark, and that mark is: as long as you're looking for a 
job and you're able-bodied, then we understand, but the neediest of 
Americans need what we're doing, and that we are not going to give up 
on.
  So the Republican Party is here with an open ear, a strong voice and 
a kind heart; but what we are saying back is: Mr. President and 
Democrat Party, you need to help us grow jobs in America. You need to 
let loose the Keystone pipeline, which has been studied to death for 
the last 5 or 6 years. You need to be with us today on the 3,700 more 
jobs in Arizona. You need to be with us today because we're the ones 
who are talking about jobs in healthy forests, with timber, back home 
in rural areas because rural people deserve a chance to have a job and 
to be taken care of, too.
  The Republican Party is quite consistent in our behavior--we want 
jobs; we want job creation; and we put legislation on the floor that 
accomplishes just that. That's why we're here today. We are a party 
that cares about people, and we are trying to make life better for the 
middle class and for all Americans in this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends don't like the President. We hear 
it every day. I get it.
  While you debate his policies, don't take it out on poor people. The 
CBO says 3.8 million people will be thrown off this benefit, and 
170,000 veterans will lose their benefits.
  This bill is not a thoughtful bill--it is a thoughtless bill--because 
it hasn't even gone through committee. This is more a political 
statement than it is sound policy or even bad policy. It's just plain 
politics. It's red meat for, I guess, the extreme right-wing base. I'm 
hoping there are people on your side who will see through this and who 
will stand with us and do the right thing, because it has been a 
bipartisan tradition in this Congress to support efforts to prevent 
hunger.
  At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest this rule and these deep 
and disastrous cuts to food stamps.
  This $40 billion in cuts goes against decades of bipartisan support 
for the fight against hunger in the United States. It will hurt our 
economy, and it is, in a word, immoral.
  If this cruel legislation were to become law, at least 4 million of 
the Nation's poorest citizens would lose access to the food that they 
need. We are talking about people on the edge: families whose 
breadwinners just got laid off; veterans returning from service who are 
looking for jobs, 170,000 of them; seniors struggling to make ends meet 
after a lifetime of work and who will be forced to make the choice 
between food and medicine; and millions of low-income children whose 
futures will be irreparably harmed by these reckless cuts.
  Don't take my word for it:
  In working with Census data, the Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities projects that, roughly, 170,000 veterans could lose access 
to food stamps under the provisions of this bill;
  The AARP called these efforts to cut antihunger programs an 
``abandonment of the Nation's commitment to ensuring essential 
nutrition access for many U.S. households'';
  Two former Senate majority leaders, Republican and Democrat--Bob Dole 
and Tom Daschle--have called this bill an ``about-face on our progress 
fighting hunger.''
  Senator Dole is right--the majority's leadership has lost its way on 
this issue. For decades, there has been bipartisan support for food 
stamps, our Nation's most important antihunger program.
  They help over 47 million Americans--nearly half of them are 
children--escape the scourge of hunger. Nearly all food stamp 
recipients live below 130 percent of the poverty line, and 75 percent 
of food stamp households include a child, a senior citizen, or a 
disabled person. It also boasts one of the lowest error rates of any 
government program.
  Economists agree that food stamps have a powerful, positive impact on 
the health of not just families but of the entire economy, and they get 
money into the hands of people who spend it on the food that they need. 
Cutting antihunger funding like this is not just immoral; it makes no 
economic sense.
  I might add that it makes no economic sense either to cut $40 billion 
from food stamps for the poor while preserving $90 billion in crop 
insurance for the wealthy, including that of 26 farmers, who made over 
$1 million from the Federal Government. These are 26 wealthy farm 
owners whom we are prevented from identifying. They won't tell us who 
they are. They are protected. It is just plain wrong.
  If the majority's leadership is serious about wanting to lower the 
number of

[[Page 13959]]

Americans on food stamps, increase the minimum wage. Taking food out of 
the mouths of the hungry is not the answer.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman who served in the United States Air Force, from Gainesville, 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the 
Judiciary Committee, and the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, and I am getting ready to speak on 
an issue that is very close on this rule. I support all of the rules 
combined here, and I support the underlying legislation, but I have to 
stop for just a moment and discuss some things that I've heard.
  I agree with my gentlemen friends across the aisle in that it is 
about political choices, that it is about political decisions that we 
make on where we're going to spend money and how we're going to do that 
and what we believe in with regard to jobs and how jobs are being 
created. The Republican majority has been doing that. The Republican 
majority is focused on jobs. The Republican majority is focused on 
getting regulatory burdens off of businesses.
  I just spent the last month and a half in my district, and the word 
that I could use to describe everything was ``uncertainty.'' There is 
uncertainty by the business owners--the ones who write on the front of 
the checks--when they're saying, I want to be able to employ other 
people and I want to be able to help others, but, right now, I do not 
know if I can because I don't know. With the expanding regulation and 
the upcoming health care law, I don't know if I can do that.
  It is about political choices, and the Republican majority is making 
it in favor of the working class, in favor of the middle class and of 
those who are hurting in our country. We have the ear because we want 
to grow jobs, and we want to get out of the way so those jobs can be 
created.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this rule for these reasons. 
Because you know something? I have noticed something as a freshman in 
here in Washington. There is one thing I've noticed that I don't see in 
Georgia. I see a lot of condos going up up here in D.C. I see a lot of 
new government buildings, and I see a lot of new government jobs. But 
do you know what I say? That's great for inside the beltway. I'm happy 
for those up here, but that doesn't translate in Georgia Nine. In 
Georgia Nine, we're still recovering, and we're still needing help, and 
we're still needing an economy that gets its budget balanced and that 
gets its tax priorities in order so that we can have job creation. 
That's where we need to have it all across the country, not here in the 
wonderful land of government.
  In this Chamber, we often hear talk about more fully developing 
renewable resources. In fact, I hear it almost every night on this 
floor. I believe that timber is the original renewable resource and 
that we need to do a better job of managing it. While much of the 
conversations today are related to western forests, I want to speak a 
little bit about what the bill means for the eastern portion of the 
country, specifically north Georgia.
  The Chattahoochee National Forest covers almost 500,000 acres of land 
in the Ninth District of Georgia, timber that was used for cabins long 
before the national forest system existed. Much of the privately owned 
forest nearby is actively managed and provides high-quality timber for 
many uses. In fact, forestry is a $25 billion industry in Georgia.
  Unfortunately, like the Western States, bureaucracy and red tape have 
made it nearly impossible to harvest timber in the national forest. In 
a country that is blessed with abundant natural resources and healthy 
forests, we owe it to our ancestors and our descendants to be 
responsible stewards of this valuable commodity. While we have not had 
the catastrophic forest fires in Georgia that many of the Western 
States have suffered through, we have dealt with cycles of extreme 
drought, which put the forests in a dangerous position. Understanding 
that many wildfires are caused by poor management is a good first step, 
but we need to take a bigger step. By returning these forests to active 
management, we will not only grow our forests, but we can grow our 
economy as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. H.R. 1526 also includes a reform to the 
supporting rural schools program. This is a program that clearly needs 
to be reformed but in a thoughtful way that recognizes the unique 
position that our rural schools are in. We can't continue to send 
Federal dollars towards local schools through a system that can't pay 
for itself. This bill provides funding sources for local schools that 
have missed out on the revenue through federally owned forests. This 
bill gives schools that have grown dependent on these funds a chance to 
transition into a new system, one that is sustainable and one that 
promotes investment in our natural resources and our forest resources.
  As I said earlier, this bill is good for the economy, and I will stop 
where I started: the Republican majority is about jobs. The Republican 
majority is about having an upward lift for all in our economy, not 
just for the ones we want to focus on through political choice.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to remind the 
gentleman who just spoke that there are 36,000 households in his 
district in Georgia who rely on SNAP. I think they're counting on him 
to vote a different way.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) who just spoke, 
has finally acknowledged what so many other Republicans refuse to 
acknowledge: that they have made a political choice. They've made a 
political choice to defund the SNAP program. I'm glad that he publicly 
acknowledged that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3102. The Republicans are 
determined to defund this program, a program that provides food 
assistance to low-income families and to more than 20 percent of my 
congressional district.
  The Agriculture Committee reported a bill that cut $16 billion from 
nutrition. The Speaker wouldn't schedule a vote. Why? Because the Tea 
Party said ``not enough cuts.'' The Republicans then increased 
nutrition cuts to $20.5 billion, and the Speaker crossed his fingers 
and hoped for passage. It went down on this floor in defeat. Not a 
single Democrat voted for it. Many Republicans said the cuts were not 
enough.
  Now here we are again today. The Republicans, driven by the 
irrational Tea Party, bring us another nutrition title that now cuts 
$40 billion from nutrition.
  My friends, I know that cutting the deficit is important to all of 
us, but do not reduce the deficit by depriving more than 3 million good 
Americans of the opportunity to eat. That's not who we are as a Nation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee for Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his good work on 
this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues for what I hope 
will be their support of passage of this legislation, specifically the 
parts related to the Federal forest land. Federal forest land across 
the Nation is rotting, it's dying, and it's burning because the Federal 
Government has failed to manage our forests.
  When we actively managed our forests and selectively logged our 
lands, we had vibrant ecosystems and we had

[[Page 13960]]

vibrant and healthy economies. Now the forests are overstocked, they're 
diseased and infested, and they go up in smoke. Communities are 
literally dying. Counties are literally on the edge of bankruptcy. In 
my State, some of those counties have 50 percent to 70 percent of the 
landmass in Federal forest lands or grasslands.
  Most forests are overstocked and disease infested, communities are 
dying, mills are closing. You're talking about children living in 
poverty? Misguided Federal policy on forest land management puts 
children in my district into poverty and their parents out of work. 
Local communities struggle to provide even basic services like law 
enforcement and schools.
  H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, 
returns more active management to our Federal forest lands. This 
proposal has been crafted with input from Federal foresters, industry 
representatives, and, most importantly, the residents of these local 
communities who are living in poverty, subject to choking, 
catastrophic, and sometimes deadly wildfires, and the choking smoke 
that fills our valleys now every summer.
  H.R. 1526 also includes a balanced and bipartisan plan for unique 
Oregon forests. Oregonians have been managing forests since the times 
of the Oregon Trail most likely, and we're proud of our Oregon Forest 
Practices Act and its commitment not only to the economy but to the 
ecology and to the environment, with protections for water, for 
streams, and for regeneration of our forests for future generations.
  Unfortunately, yesterday, we got word that the White House has issued 
a veto threat on this urgently needed and balanced bill. The President 
and his team clearly have no idea--none--on what's happening in our 
rural communities with Federal forest lands surrounding them in the 
West. Counties are literally going broke. Folks are facing double-digit 
unemployment and double-digit poverty. Citizens call 911 for emergency 
help and are told literally, ``Sorry, we can't help you. There's no one 
to send.''
  Fires are raging throughout our forests. Enough is enough. The system 
is broken. This law will change that and fix that, and the White House 
needs to understand that and be a partner for progress, not an enemy of 
it.
  Today, the House will act to provide relief for citizens in these 
rural communities, and I urge my colleagues to choose jobs, safety, the 
health of our rural communities and health of our forests for future 
generations, to reject poverty and unhealthy forests, because that's 
what we face today.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, a ``yes'' vote on the 
underlying bill because our rural communities have waited too long for 
this relief
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Oregon that there are one 
in five Oregonians who are on food stamps as we gather here today. In 
his district, there are nearly 60,000. You talked about trees, but 
there are a lot of people that will be adversely affected.
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I have no remaining time to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the harmful 
underlying bill.
  Fifteen thousand families in my district on the central coast of 
California rely every day on the SNAP program to help make ends meet. 
These are our veterans, our seniors, people with disabilities, 
hardworking parents, and kids going to school. They don't care if SNAP 
cuts come from the farm bill or as a stand-alone bill. They do care 
that the cuts create a gaping hole in our country's most basic safety 
net.
  We should all care because cuts to SNAP have a ripple effect in our 
local communities and throughout our economy. Every SNAP dollar is 
nearly doubled in economic impact. It helps pay the local grocery store 
worker. It helps support truckers who haul the food. It goes to the 
food producers and farmers who grow the crops.
  I urge my colleagues to stop playing politics with our Nation's 
hungry and those who provide the food we all rely on. Vote ``no'' on 
this rule, ``no'' on the bill, and let's get back to passing a 
comprehensive, inclusive farm bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule and the underlying bill.
  You may have noticed Fox News is trying to help the Republicans push 
this mean-spirited legislation by focusing on a California surfer who 
abuses the SNAP system. Well, it's time for a reality check. This isn't 
about surfer dudes.
  I'll tell you one group it is about: our Nation's veterans, 50,000 of 
them to be exact. Let me clarify. These veterans, with an average 
income of $2,500, would lose benefits immediately. As the bill's other 
provisions kick in, as many as 170,000 veterans could lose their SNAP 
assistance.
  In Cumberland County, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg and of 
thousands of veterans, our unemployment rate is nearly 11 percent. This 
bill requires States to terminate the already minimal food aid 
available to able-bodied but unemployed individuals living in such 
high-unemployment areas. By the way, Republicans would also subject 
these veterans to the added indignity of a drug test.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. It 
dishonors our poorest veterans, and it disparages those the Gospel of 
Matthew calls ``the least of these.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition 
to the rule, and say I will be so proud to vote today not to take food 
away from children and veterans and the disabled and the unemployed. 
Over half of these who receive these benefits are young children and 
senior citizens. So this is one of those legislative moments of true 
clarity between the leadership of both parties.
  The Republican leadership's proposal will increase hunger across our 
country by taking away SNAP benefits from millions of Americans. They 
claim that restricting SNAP eligibility will encourage those who are 
receiving benefits to take work. What this fails to recognize is that 
there are about three unemployed workers for every job that is out 
there in our country right now. In some places, it's even worse than 
that. Even if an unemployed person filled every available job, roughly 
two of every three unemployed individuals would still not have a job 
because there aren't enough yet to go around in our country. People are 
struggling.
  I just want to say that this is one of those moments when I am so 
proud to be a Democrat and stand with my colleagues today against these 
cuts to the most fundamental requirements of a decent life--access to 
sufficient, nutritious food.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a standard of at 
least being honest about what's in the bill. We are not throwing people 
off who are disabled. It is an able-bodied standard, and the 
gentlewoman knows that.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hood 
River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas because I 
wanted to respond to my friend from Massachusetts, who didn't have any 
more time to yield or talk about it after he talked about people in my 
district on food stamps. Indeed they are, and they don't want to be. If 
you'd support our legislation that's bipartisan on healthy forests, 
they'd have dignity and a job, and they'd be able to take care of their 
families, and they would have schools.
  I know they have dignity when they're on food stamps. I understand 
that. I also know they'd feel much better about their role in life if 
they could

[[Page 13961]]

go and be productive again as they were. We've seen 300 mills closed, 
30,000 people lose their jobs, and there's a solution here that doesn't 
raid the Federal Treasury and borrow money to pay for it. It's called a 
job. And we wouldn't spend over half the Forest Service budget fighting 
fire. Instead, we would replenish our forests, we'd get them healthy 
again, we wouldn't choke our valleys with smoke in the summer, which is 
occurring all over the country, because we'd be managing these great 
Federal forest reserves.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to my Republican 
colleagues that maybe they ought to deal with sequester, maybe they 
ought to stop threatening to shut the government down, and maybe they 
ought to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor to put people 
back to work, and, in the meantime, they ought not to throw poor people 
off food assistance.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. McGovern, I thank you so much for 
yielding, and let me say I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The $40 billion cuts to the anti-poverty SNAP program are immoral, 
they're heartless, and they really are un-American. These cuts do not 
reflect the compassion of the American people. The so-called 
``reforms'' in this bill will only dramatically reduce access to vital 
nutrition assistance all across America in rural and urban communities 
and every single one of our congressional districts. In my own 
district, over 22,000 households will be impacted and more than 1.6 
million homes throughout California. Not only does SNAP help put food 
on the table for struggling families, it also helps stimulate economic 
growth.
  Mr. Speaker, 76 percent of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and 
persons with disabilities. This is a cold-blooded cut. The majority of 
people on food stamps want to work. I haven't seen the majority bring 
any bill to the floor that really creates jobs for people, and I just 
have to say, yes, I was on food stamps during a very difficult period 
in my life, and I thank the American people for that lifeline as a 
bridge over troubled waters.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 
15 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me just conclude by saying that while 
we're recovering from this devastating recession, we cannot and should 
not cast the most vulnerable aside.
  There are many in the majority who are people of faith. I want to 
remind you of the Scriptures which require us to feed the hungry. 
There's something fundamentally wrong when we pray on Sunday and vote 
to take away food from hungry people on Thursday.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have a disabled child at home, a Down 
Syndrome young man. I understand very well about the need for our 
country to help and provide assistance to disabled people. It is not 
true, and it's unfair for someone to characterize this bill as taking 
someone who is disabled off the SNAP rolls.
  And I'm sorry that we have Members who evidently have not read the 
bill and do not understand what we're doing. But that's a fact; and we 
should not pass along information that, in fact, is not true. I hope 
that this body would stay away from that very emotional issue because 
not only is it not fair, but it's not true.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend from Texas, 
we know exactly what you are all doing here. What you are doing is 
throwing 3.8 million people off of this program who, quite frankly, 
rely on it to put food on the table.
  And I just want to point out for the record, the average length of 
someone on SNAP is about 9 months. There are people who work, who work 
full time who are on SNAP because they don't earn enough. People do 
want to work. People don't want to be on public assistance. But the 
bottom line is that we have had a Congress here that has blocked every 
major piece of legislation that might produce jobs. So let's get our 
facts straight here.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle like to act like 11 million 
unemployed Americans are out of work because they want to be out of 
work. This is a debate between two things, common sense versus no 
sense. You even offer a jewel to the States. And you say to the States, 
if you cut more people off your roles, we'll let you keep half the 
money. And then you can do with it whatever you want. That is immoral. 
That is totally nonsensical. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
  We're talking about kids, we are talking about veterans, and we are 
talking about the disabled. That's what we're talking about. And if you 
don't think this bill cuts many of those people off the rolls, then 
you, obviously--to use your term--you didn't read the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Nearly 30,000 households in my current district benefit 
from this program. I would ask you to examine the bill and examine your 
conscience before you----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would remind Members to avoid references to other Members 
in the second person.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to this 
unconscionable legislation. Make no mistake, if you support this bill, 
you are voting to take food from the mouths of almost 4 million of our 
fellow citizens next year. Who are these Americans? Nearly half of them 
are children. They are seniors. They are our veterans. One in every 
five veterans receives SNAP benefits. Is this the way we thank them for 
their service?
  Mr. Speaker, Congress does not agree on much these days; but I have 
always assumed that we could at least support the idea that in this 
country no child should go hungry. Have we gone so far that we cannot 
even find bipartisan support for that? If so, then we have truly lost 
our way.
  Is this what my Republican friends call ``compassionate 
conservatism''? I say to my colleagues, the whole Nation is watching. 
You will be held accountable. Vote ``no'' on this rule and this 
shameful underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would like to explain, if I can, ``compassionate conservatism.'' 
It's called 60 straight months of economic growth, 60 straight months 
of this country growing stronger because people had jobs under a 
Republican House, under a Republican President, under a Republican 
Senate. Sixty straight months of economic growth that made our country 
stronger and better. And that is compassionate conservatism. That's the 
Republican Party. We're trying to get back to job growth, job creation, 
and help the middle class of this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the gentleman that 
compassionate conservatism also gave us the Great Recession.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the defeat of this rule 
and of the underlying bill which will throw millions of Americans off 
of food stamps at a time when they need it. And I urge that on behalf 
of my constituent Jenenne Smalls, a 37-year-old formerly homeless 
veteran with three children who my office helped get on food stamps.
  I urge it on behalf of a semi-deity to the Republicans, Ronald 
Reagan, who

[[Page 13962]]

said, As long as there is one person in the country who is hungry, that 
is one person too many. And I urge it on behalf of a real deity, Mr. 
Speaker. Above my head are the words, ``In God we trust.'' In my 
Christian faith, the notion that we feed the hungry is unimpeachable 
and nonconditional.
  Matthew does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as you can do it with 
100 percent efficiency. Mark does not say, Feed the hungry, so long as 
you pass the XL pipeline. Luke does not say, Feed the hungry, so long 
as you loosen environmental regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill, which is deeply, deeply flawed, 
must not pass.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, it's my privilege to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman for yielding the time, and I want to thank him for devoting 
his entire political career to the idea of eradicating hunger in 
American society and around the world, an outstanding record of 
achievement, an outstanding record of compassion. And then today, it 
runs into the Republican reality.
  I know how you must feel, Mr. McGovern, after all these years of 
work, to see them cavalierly suggest that they can cut $40 billion in 
nutrition benefits to families, to children, to working people, to 
people searching for work, and that somehow nobody will lose their 
benefits, that somehow they're not throwing anybody off of the program. 
It's not that we said, you are throwing people off the program. It's 
that the Congressional Budget Office said that with the $40 billion 
cut, some 3.8 million people would lose their benefits and an average 
of nearly 3 million people each year over the coming decade. Over the 
coming decade, those people will lose their benefits.
  What does that mean? I specialize in education. I visit schools 
almost every week. I talk to teachers every day that tell me about the 
fact that when children come there that they are nutritionally 
deprived, that they may not have had dinner, that they may not have had 
breakfast, that they are not attentive in class, that they fall asleep 
in class, that they're irritable. And we're going to cut the benefits 
to these children. And yet we want these children to perform at a high 
level. And they should be able to perform at a high level. We expect 
them to achieve in school.
  But that's not what this program is about. This program is about 
cutting those benefits to those children in need. It's about cutting 
those benefits to those families in need. It's just unconscionable that 
they would think that somehow this is the road to prosperity, that you 
get to the road to prosperity by attacking the most vulnerable in our 
society who are in desperate need of these nutritional benefits for 
their families. Do they not know that one in five children lives in a 
home that experiences hunger on a regular basis?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Do they not know this? Are they not 
aware of it? Or do they not care? Somebody has to answer that question. 
Because when this Nation was shocked that they were going to cut $20 
billion out of these nutritional benefits for these struggling families 
and individuals, they came back and said, No, we're going to cut $40 
billion out of these benefits. What, because they're angry that the 
last measure didn't succeed? They're angry about what happened to the 
Agriculture bill? Is it because of anger that they're striking out at 
these families?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It shouldn't be that way in this 
country, and it shouldn't be that way in this Congress. These families 
are entitled to better. They are entitled to jobs. They are entitled to 
provide for their families, but some can't.
  Those wonderful 60 months stripped trillions of dollars away from 
these families and middle class families in this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to heed the gavel.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, the gentleman comes down and evidently is either 
unwilling or has not read the bill to an understanding where the 
statement was made about preventing 280,000 children from receiving a 
free school lunch. Nothing in this bill makes changes to the school 
lunch program.
  The National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Programs 
automatically qualify students who are enrolled in SNAP for free school 
meals. The school meals programs are not authorized under this bill nor 
are eligible for requirements under this committee's jurisdiction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I need to qualify something here. I want 
to respond to what the gentleman just said.
  The fact of the matter is, when children's parents get cut from SNAP, 
then children are no longer eligible for free breakfast and lunch in 
school. That's where we get the number of 270,000 kids who will lose 
their free breakfast and lunch programs. That's the connection. So it 
is connected. So I would point that out because it is important. I 
don't want anyone to be fooled by the fact that somehow this doesn't 
affect school meals. It does, very directly.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and 
the draconian cuts to SNAP, a lifeline that millions of Americans rely 
on. Republicans want to slash nearly $40 billion from SNAP and take 
food out of the mouths of nearly 4 million Americans, including 68,000 
of my constituents. These drastic cuts will harm children, seniors, 
veterans, and Americans living in cities like Memphis with chronically 
high unemployment, all in the name of rooting out fraud.
  It's interesting that Republicans see fraud and abuse in the SNAP 
program sometimes, but they seem to ignore the billions of dollars of 
fraud and abuse at the Pentagon. According to one estimate, hundreds of 
defense contractors that defrauded the U.S. military and taxpayers 
received more than $1.1 trillion in Pentagon contracts during the past 
decade. Where is the outrage across the aisle and the demands for 
better oversight for defense contracting? Instead of fixing problems 
for the contractors who might be fraudulently taking billions of 
taxpayer dollars, they're focusing on making it harder for the families 
who are struggling to receive a little extra help. We need to be 
finding ways to reduce poverty in our communities, not cutting programs 
that work, like SNAP.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and oppose the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Republican ``let them starve'' bill 
would undermine what Professors Miguel Ferguson, Stacey Borasky, and 
Scott Harding recently described in an article as a ``modern 
antipoverty marvel.'' SNAP, they report, ``improves access to healthy 
meals for nearly one in three children. It also reduces chronic illness 
and hospitalizations and significantly reduces poverty and the severity 
of poverty.'' It ``keeps kids healthier, happier, and better prepared 
to do their best in school.'' And SNAP ``is one of the most efficient 
government programs, with a rigorous application process, high rates of 
payment accuracy, and low rates of misuse (about a 1 cent on the 
dollar).'' The main limitation is not that it helps feed too many 
people or costs too much but that almost 30 percent of those eligible 
get nothing.
  We cannot snap our fingers and snap away poverty, but this bill will 
snap a vital lifeline. It must be rejected.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 13963]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation.
  Much has been said this morning about how 4 million people will lose 
the safety net of food stamps. This is going to derail the effort to 
pass a farm bill, and America needs a farm bill. But, you know, the 
bottom line is this is a cynical piece of legislation. It is not about 
work. Sixty-eight percent of the folks on food stamps are women with 
kids. It's children. It's elderly. It's disabled. That's number one.
  Number two, how is a person going to get into a nonexistent work 
program? And work is great. It's not as though either side has a 
monopoly on the desirability of advocating for work. But when there's 
no work program that a person who is required to get food stamps can 
enter into, it means they are without food stamps and are denied the 
opportunity to work, both.
  So this is a political statement, not a practical policy that is 
going to get us to where we need to be. It's going to throw people off 
food stamps who need it. It creates a cynical, nonexistent work 
program; and it creates an incentive for States who are going to reap 
the benefits of lower food stamp rolls, to throw people off even 
further.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Social Darwinism, survival of the 
fittest at its worst. And what's ironic is it's a program that works. 
Cutting $40 billion, 3.8 million Americans thrown off supplemental 
nutritional assistance that works, that gives them a ladder to success, 
children, the disabled, adults that find themselves in a difficult 
period for a period of time. The distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee points out, 9 months is the average.
  Don't do this.
  In a different Congress at a different time on a different issue, 
there was a famous lawyer who turned to Joe McCarthy and said, ``At 
long last, sir, have you no decency?''
  I ask that of this Congress, on this very important issue, have we no 
decency?
  Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough when the House majority tried to ram 
through a Farm bill that cut SNAP by $20 billion and would have kicked 
2 million people off nutrition assistance, including more than 200,000 
children. Thankfully, a bipartisan group rejected that bill.
  Rather than learn from that defeat, House Republicans have decided to 
double down on this darwinian philosophy. The impact will be 
devastating. In my district more than 13,000 families are at risk of 
losing assistance.
  Beyond the face of hunger, lost in this debate is a tragic irony. As 
the majority moves to gut SNAP, Congress once again refuses to end 
taxpayer handouts to big agribusiness, including some Members of this 
Chamber.
  The American public should be forgiven for smelling the stench of 
hypocrisy. The very people who repeatedly call on this body to reign in 
government and cut spending, seem to have no problem collecting tens of 
thousands of dollars in farm subsidies.
  To allay this conflict of ideology I have twice offered an amendment 
to ensure Members of Congress do not receive farm subsidies. How can 
elected officials ask taxpayers to cover their risk, and then tell 
those at risk of hunger they are on their own? Yet the majority refuses 
a floor vote. The silence is damning.
  So I ask you Mr. Speaker, who are the real takers?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked the question 
about have we no decency. Have you no decency?
  And these are good friends here. We're colleagues. We come to work 
for America.
  But all who can read, and all who can feel the pain of hunger should 
ask the question and should beg and plead: don't cut SNAP; $40 billion, 
3.4 billion in meals, and 24 meals a month for a family.
  Unless you have the cure for poverty, 46 million Americans, then how 
dare you come to the floor and eliminate a lifeline. Yes, school 
breakfasts, but what about the children who are from zero to 3 to 4 who 
are at home with parents, who are at home with the families, the 
spouses of Active Duty soldiers who use food stamps?
  And then the absolute insult: a State like Texas that is prosperous, 
you give them the instruction to cut people off of food stamps, and 
then give them a bonus--a bonus--for hurting people and taking their 
life away.
  This is a shameful act. Vote down this rule and this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Could I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he 
has?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking. I am down just to 
the close, and I thank the gentleman for seeking that information.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I'd like to insert into 
the Record letters from the United States Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, the United States Conference of Mayors, AARP, and a list of a 
number of other groups that are opposed to the bill.
  And I'd also like to insert into the Record a September 4 New York 
Times story, entitled, ``On the Edge of Poverty, at the Center of a 
Debate on Food Stamps.''
                                     Committee on Domestic Justice


                                        and Human Development,

                                               September 11, 2013.
       Dear Representative: As the House considers a proposal to 
     address nutrition programs apart from the Farm Bill, I write 
     to urge you to oppose harmful cuts and changes to the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House 
     proposal would cut SNAP by $40 billion and harm hungry 
     children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who 
     are underemployed or unable to find employment.
       Adequate and nutritious food is a fundamental human right 
     and a basic need that is integral to protecting the life and 
     dignity of the human person. SNAP is one of the most 
     effective and important federal programs to combat hunger in 
     the nation by helping to feed millions of persons in need 
     every year.
       SNAP helps relieve pressure on overwhelmed parishes, 
     charities, food banks, pantries and other emergency food 
     providers across the country that could not begin to meet the 
     need for food assistance if SNAP eligibility or benefits were 
     reduced. The faith community and the private sector are vital 
     in the fight to combat hunger. But government has an 
     indispensable role in safeguarding and promoting the common 
     good of all. This includes ensuring poor and hungry people 
     have access to adequate and nutritious food.
       Struggling people are not seeking a life of government 
     dependency but rightfully deserve decent paying jobs to 
     provide for them and their families. Even with evidence of a 
     modest economic recovery, the economy still has not improved 
     the standard of living for many people, especially for the 
     poor and the working poor. More than four million people have 
     been jobless for over six months, and that does not include 
     the millions more who have simply lost hope. For every 
     available job, there are often five unemployed and 
     underemployed people actively vying for it. SNAP remains an 
     essential tool to help struggling individuals and families 
     avoid hunger and stay out of poverty.
       Proposals to eliminate access to SNAP for people who have 
     at some point in their lifetime committed certain crimes are 
     counterproductive and an affront to human dignity. Persons 
     who have paid their debt to society and their families should 
     not be penalized for the sins of the past. A on-size-fits-all 
     approach to state waivers on SNAP work requirements is 
     unreasonable. States should continue to be afforded the 
     flexibility to assess and respond to local needs and economic 
     conditions. Ending state waivers will only harm vulnerable 
     people.
       How the House chooses to address our nation's hunger and 
     nutrition programs will have profound human and moral 
     consequences. This is a crucial time for our nation to place 
     a circle of protection around programs that build a more just 
     framework and put poor and hungry people first. I 
     respectfully urge you to reject efforts to reduce or 
     restructure SNAP, and to pursue instead the common good in 
     agriculture and

[[Page 13964]]

     food policy that works from a genuine preferential option for 
     the poor.
           Sincerely,
     Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
       Bishop of Stockton, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice 
     and Human Development.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     To: The Mayor.
     From: Tom Cochran, CEO & Executive Director.
       The House of Representatives is set to debate its farm bill 
     this week. The bill, ``The Nutrition Reform and Work 
     Opportunity Act,'' contains $40 billion over ten years in 
     cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 
     food stamp program, and other nutrition programs. The cuts 
     would eliminate SNAP benefits for millions of needy people, 
     slash food benefits for additional participants, and undercut 
     states' ability to keep SNAP supports for certain jobless 
     people in cities with high unemployment.
       In 2010, SNAP lifted nearly 3.9 million people out of 
     poverty, 1.7 of them were children. Over 47 million people 
     received benefits in 2012; the House bill would cut benefits 
     for 2 to 4 million poor and unemployed adults. Nearly half of 
     SNAP enrollees are children, and the program helps feed 
     roughly one in three children in America. Additionally, 
     almost 75 percent of SNAP participants are in households with 
     children, seniors, or a disabled individual.
       For more information please contact Assistant Executive 
     Director Crystal Swann.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                               September 17, 2013.
       Dear Representative: AARP opposes HR 3102, ``The Nutrition 
     Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013,'' especially the 
     cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 
     and we urge you to vote against it. The new House nutrition 
     bill retains the provisions opposed by AARP and other anti-
     hunger advocates in earlier House Farm Bill efforts while 
     adding more stringent conditions to discourage participation 
     in SNAP and generate cost savings that will harm millions of 
     documented hungry and food insecure Americans.
       Removal of the nutrition title of the Farm Bill represents 
     an abandonment of the nation's commitment to ensuring 
     essential nutrition access for many U.S. households that face 
     a constant struggle against hunger and food insecurity daily, 
     as well as emergency food assistance in times of economic and 
     natural crises or disasters. SNAP helps states and 
     communities struck by disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, 
     floods and earthquakes gain access to critical food 
     assistance where local supplies have been destroyed or 
     rendered inaccessible. Along with helping low-income persons 
     eat healthier, more nutritious food, the nutrition programs 
     also benefit the economy. For example, every $5 in new SNAP 
     benefits generates $9--nearly twice as much--in total 
     community spending.
       The recent economic recession is testimony to the 
     importance of the Farm Bill nutrition programs in providing 
     food to assistance for families that would have otherwise 
     gone without food. Indeed, the major criticism of SNAP is 
     that the program is too successful in responding to the 
     increased need for assistance in difficult economic times. 
     Despite SNAP having reduced error rates and fraud to levels 
     that are the envy of every other major federal program, the 
     House of Representatives is now proposing to significantly 
     reduce its commitment to ensuring that food insecure 
     households will have adequate access to food based on 
     objective need. AARP believes any outdated rules that 
     encourage waste or fraud should be addressed, but not at the 
     expense of legitimately hungry families--which 
     disproportionately include children, seniors and persons with 
     disabilities.
       Hungry children, seniors and families cannot and should not 
     have to wait on the economic and political sidelines for 
     access to an effective nutrition safety net. The slow 
     economy, higher prices for food and energy, and the impending 
     November 1, 2013 elimination of the SNAP benefit boost from 
     the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have 
     made the situation acute for all concerned. Indeed, the 
     amount provided to feed the typical family is projected to 
     drop from about $4.50 to less than $4.00 per meal--a 
     scheduled reduction regardless of the outcome of this 
     legislation. We urge you not to punish food insecure 
     Americans, and to vote against HR 3102.
       If you have any further questions, please feel free to call 
     me, or have your staff contact Ariel Gonzalez or Larry White 
     on our Government Affairs staff at 202-434-3770.
           Sincerely,
                                                    A. Barry Rand,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


             Groups With Letters in Opposition to H.R. 3102


                           Agriculture Groups

       National Farmers Union, Rural Coalition.


                            Nutrition Groups

       Feeding America, Feed the Children, Center on Budget and 
     Policy Priorities, Share Our Strength.


                               Executives

       U.S. Conference of Mayors.


                            Religious Groups

       Mazon, Sojourners, National Association of Evangelicals, 
     Presbyterian Church (USA), US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
     Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Christian Reformed 
     Church, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, American Baptist 
     Churches USA, Bread for the World, United Methodist Church 
     General Board of Church and Society, The Jewish Federations 
     of North America.


                         Homeless Organizations

       California Association of Food Banks, Center for Community 
     Change, CSH, Feed The Children, Horizons for Homeless 
     Children, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National 
     Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, 
     National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, National 
     Coalition for the Homeless, National Health Care for the 
     Homeless Council, National Law Center on Homelessness and 
     Poverty, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National 
     Network for Youth, National Network to End Domestic Violence, 
     Western Center on Law and Poverty, Western Regional Advocacy 
     Project, Goodwill Industries.


                           Justice Advocates

       American Civil Liberties Union, The Bronx Defenders, 
     Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at 
     Harvard Law School, Council on American Islamic Relations, 
     Face and Voices of Recovery, FedCURE, Grassroots Leadership, 
     Human Rights Defense Center, Human Rights Watch, 
     International Community Corrections Association, Justice 
     Policy Institute, The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
     Human Rights, Legal Action Center, NAACP.
       National African American Drug Policy Coalition, National 
     Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association 
     of Social Workers, National Coalition for the Homeless, 
     National Council of La Raza, National Employment Law Project, 
     National HIRE Network, National Law Center on Homelessness 
     and Poverty, National Workrights Institute, One Million 
     Americans, Ltd., Oriana House, Inc, Reentry Central, Robert 
     F. Kennedy Children's Action Corps, Juvenile Justive 
     Collaborative, Safer Foundation, The Sentencing Project, 
     StoptheDrugWar.org, Treatment Communities of America, 
     WestCare Foundation, Inc.


                             Seniors Groups

       National Council on Aging, AARP.


                           Healthcare Groups

       American Public Health Association, Trust for America's 
     Health.


                            Education Groups

       American Federation of Teachers, National Skills Coalition, 
     National Education Association.


                              Labor Unions

       AFSCME.


                             Tribal Groups

       Combined letter from National Indian Education Association 
     and National Congress of American Indians, National Indian 
     Child Welfare Association, National Indian Health Board, 
     Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, United South and 
     Eastern Tribes, Inc., Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, 
     Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Inter Tribal 
     Council, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, 
     Self Governance Communications and Education Tribal 
     Consortium.
                                  ____


                [From The New York Times, Sept. 4, 2013]

    On the Edge of Poverty, at the Center of a Debate on Food Stamps

                        (By Sheryl Gay Stolberg)

       Dyersburg, TN.--As a self-described ``true Southern man''--
     and reluctant recipient of food stamps--Dustin Rigsby, a 
     struggling mechanic, hunts deer, doves and squirrels to help 
     feed his family. He shops for grocery bargains, cooks budget-
     stretching stews and limits himself to one meal a day.
       Tarnisha Adams, who left her job skinning hogs at a 
     slaughterhouse when she became ill with cancer, gets $352 a 
     month in food stamps for herself and three college-age sons. 
     She buys discount meat and canned vegetables, cheaper than 
     fresh. Like Mr. Rigsby, she eats once a day--``if I eat,'' 
     she said.
       When Congress officially returns to Washington next week, 
     the diets of families like the Rigsbys and the Adamses will 
     be caught up in a debate over deficit reduction. Republicans, 
     alarmed by a rise in food stamp enrollment, are pushing to 
     revamp and scale down the program. Democrats are resisting 
     the cuts.
       No matter what Congress decides, benefits will be reduced 
     in November, when a provision in the 2009 stimulus bill 
     expires.
       Yet as lawmakers cast the fight in terms of spending, 
     nonpartisan budget analysts and hunger relief advocates warn 
     of a spike in ``food insecurity'' among Americans who, as

[[Page 13965]]

     Mr. Rigsby said recently, ``look like we are fine,'' but live 
     on the edge of poverty, skipping meals and rationing food.
       Surrounded by corn and soybean farms--including one owned 
     by the local Republican congressman, Representative Stephen 
     Fincher--Dyersburg, about 75 miles north of Memphis, provides 
     an eye-opening view into Washington's food stamp debate. Mr. 
     Fincher, who was elected in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and 
     collected nearly $3.5 million in farm subsidies from the 
     government from 1999 to 2012, recently voted for a farm bill 
     that omitted food stamps.
       ``The role of citizens, of Christianity, of humanity, is to 
     take care of each other, not for Washington to steal from 
     those in the country and give to others in the country,'' Mr. 
     Fincher, whose office did not respond to interview requests, 
     said after his vote in May. In response to a Democrat who 
     invoked the Bible during the food stamp debate in Congress, 
     Mr. Fincher cited is own biblical phrase. ``The one who is 
     unwilling to work shall not eat,'' he said.
       On Wednesday, the Department of Agriculture released a 2012 
     survey showing that nearly 49 million Americans were living 
     in ``food insecure'' households meaning, in the bureaucratic 
     language of the agency, that some family members lacked 
     ``consistent access throughout the year to adequate food.'' 
     In short, many Americans went hungry. The agency found the 
     figures essentially unchanged since the economic downturn 
     began in 2008, but substantially higher than during the 
     previous decade.
       Experts say the problem is particularly acute in rural 
     regions like Dyersburg, a city of 17,000 on the banks of the 
     Forked Deer River in West Tennessee. More than half the 
     counties with the highest concentration of food insecurity 
     are rural, according to an analysis by Feeding America, the 
     nation's largest network of food banks. In Dyer County, it 
     found, 19.4 percent of residents were ``food insecure'' in 
     2011, compared with 16.4 percent nationwide.
       Over all, nearly 48 million Americans now receive food 
     stamps, an $80 billion-a-year program that is increasingly 
     the target of conservatives. Robert Rector, a scholar at the 
     conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the food stamp 
     program should be overhauled so that benefits are tied to 
     work, much as welfare was revamped under President Bill 
     Clinton. He advocates mandatory drug testing for food stamp 
     recipients--a position that draws support from Mr. Rigsby, 
     who dreams of becoming a game warden and said it irritated 
     him to see people ``mooch off the system.''
       But when benefits drop in November, the Rigsbys, who say 
     they receive about $350 a month, can expect $29 less.
       ``People have a lot of misimpressions about hunger in 
     America,'' said Maura Daly, a Feeding America spokeswoman. 
     ``People think it's associated with homelessness when, in 
     fact, it is working poor families, it's kids, it's the 
     disabled.'' Hunger is often invisible, she said, and in rural 
     areas it is even more so.
       Hunger was easy to see on a recent morning in Dyersburg. 
     Hundreds of people, many of them food stamp recipients, lined 
     up at the county fairgrounds for boxes of free food--21,000 
     pounds of meat, potatoes, grains and produce--that had been 
     trucked in from a food bank in Memphis. About 80 volunteers 
     set up an assembly line in a warehouse to distribute the 
     food.
       More than 700 families get help each month from the 
     charitable program, Feed the Need, which was founded in 2009 
     by Mark Oakes, the chairman of the local Salvation Army, 
     after a string of nearby factories closed.
       ``We couldn't absorb the work force back into our 
     community,'' Mr. Oakes said, ``and people were hungry.''
       Among the first in line at the fairgrounds was Kathy 
     Baucom, 61, a former welder disabled by lupus. She lives 
     alone in a trailer, hunts deer--``last year I bagged seven,'' 
     she said--and makes burgers, roasts and jerky out of venison. 
     Her food stamp benefits for $125 a month were recently 
     reduced to $117.
       ``I don't buy milk because it's so expensive,'' she said. 
     ``I don't buy cheese.''
       Officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program, or SNAP, food stamps have long been a cornerstone of 
     the federal safety net. Benefits, adjusted for income, are 
     loaded monthly onto a government-issued debit card. 
     Recipients say the money typically lasts a little more than 
     two weeks.
       ``We don't splurge,'' Ms. Adams said, ``and it doesn't 
     last.''
       She shops at Save-A-Lot and cooks frequently with pasta, 
     because it is filling. One recent evening, she baked a tray 
     of mostaccioli, an Italian pasta, with meat and cheese. 
     Hoping it would last for two meals, she had none herself.
       ``You hate to tell your child, `You can't eat this, you 
     have to save it for another day,''' she said.
       For the Rigsbys, both 20, the priority is three meals a day 
     for their son, Drake, who is 1. Some months they run out of 
     milk. Mr. Rigsby, who is out of work with a knee injury, 
     recently sold his truck for cash; his wife, Christina, works 
     part time as a clerk at J. C. Penney. On the refrigerator in 
     their sparsely furnished apartment is a calendar marked with 
     the date--the 6th--that their card is refreshed. ``FOOD!'' it 
     declares.
       ``When we got married, we told each other that we want to 
     be able to sit down at the table and eat as a family,'' Mrs. 
     Rigsby said. ``But we don't really get to do that.''
       In Washington, House Republicans propose cutting $40 
     billion more in food stamps over the next 10 years by 
     imposing work requirements and eliminating waivers for some 
     able-bodied adults. The cuts would push four million to six 
     million low-income people, including millions of ``very low-
     income unemployed parents'' who want to work but cannot find 
     jobs, off the rolls, according to the Center on Budget and 
     Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research organization.
       Even if approved in the House, the cuts would face strong 
     opposition from Democrats in the Senate. But the arguments of 
     Mr. Rector, the Heritage Foundation scholar, are gaining 
     traction with conservatives on Capitol Hill. ``I think food 
     stamps have in the Republican mind become the symbol of an 
     out-of-control, means-tested welfare state,'' Mr. Rector 
     said.
       Here in Tennessee, Mr. Fincher embraces that view. ``We 
     have to remember there is not a big printing press in 
     Washington that continually prints money over and over,'' he 
     said in May.
       Mr. Rigsby said his family would find a way to make do. 
     ``The way I was raised,'' he said, ``it's, `Be thankful for 
     what you've got.' We're not the worst case out there. But 
     somebody else? How is this going to affect them?''
       This article has been revised to reflect the following 
     correction: in earlier version of this article misstated the 
     given name of the 1-year-old son of Dustin and Christina 
     Rigsby. It is Drake, not Blake.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, in an era of billion-dollar defense overruns and bank 
bailouts, the Republican leadership wants to nickel-and-dime poor 
people. This is a rotten thing to try to do.
  But it's not too late, Mr. Speaker. We can defeat this bill and still 
go to conference on the farm bill.
  We can defeat this bill and make it clear that the United States 
Congress still has a conscience.
  We can defeat this bill and reestablish the long and proud tradition 
of bipartisanship on this issue. Remember Bob Dole working with George 
McGovern and Bill Emerson working with Tony Hall.
  We can defeat this bill and get back to the work of actually ending 
hunger in America, rather than making hunger worse by passing a bill 
that cuts $40 billion out of this program and throws 3.8 million people 
off the program.
  And to suggest that this bill won't hurt people, that it will not cut 
people from SNAP is just plain wrong. Read the bill. Read the bill, the 
109-page bill that didn't go through committee that's before us under a 
closed rule. Read the bill.
  This will impact not just people who are trying to look for work and 
can't find it; it will impact senior citizens; it will impact children; 
and it will impact veterans. 170,000 veterans will be cut from this 
program. Shame on us if we do this.
  I would say to my colleagues on the Republican side, I know, I know a 
lot of you believe as I do that it's important that we maintain a 
safety net for the most vulnerable. I know you believe that it's 
important that we should end hunger in America. I know you believe that 
it's wrong to cut $40 billion from this program. And I urge you--and I 
would plead with you--stand with us on this. Stand with us and reject 
this move, this harsh move, this rotten thing to do to poor people. I 
think you will be proud of standing up against this bill. This is the 
wrong thing to do.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Do the right 
thing. Let's do something in a bipartisan fashion that we can be proud 
of. And defeating a $40 billion cut to the food stamp program is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today we follow the pattern that we did 
yesterday in talking about the needs of this great Nation, not only men 
and women who are unemployed, but who also need the benefits of the 
food stamp program.
  And today, the Republican Party, as a result of the work we did in 
the Rules Committee, is bringing several bills in this rule, two of 
them talking directly about jobs and job creation.
  One, Hood River, Oregon; the gentleman, Greg Walden coming to talk

[[Page 13966]]

about, please, give us a chance to have jobs. Our people want jobs. 
They don't want to be on food stamps. They want jobs. A narrow, 
political, shrill agenda, environmentalist agenda, is the reason why we 
don't have that--the Democrats and Barack Obama.
  Secondly, Arizona. Arizona is asking for 3,700 jobs, $60 billion 
worth of economic activity right in this bill. They are jobs bills.
  We are trying to do the things that the Republican Party talks about; 
that's the middle class of this country, jobs, and job creation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' for jobs, 
``yes'' for the underlying legislation, ``yes'' so that we can employ 
people back at home, rural areas, people who don't have jobs, ``yes'' 
for the opportunity for the Republican Party to, once again, stand on 
this floor and say, we believe the legislation that is here is better 
for America than the policies that we have today, the policies of 
unemployment, the policies of less than a 40-hour workweek, now to a 
30-hour workweek, the policies of taxes and spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
rule for H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
  I am in opposition to this bill for four reasons: hunger is a real 
problem in the United States; the solution for reducing dependence on 
government subsidized food programs is full employment, this bill will 
hurt the poor and most vulnerable in our country and finally the bill 
is too draconian and pointedly anti Urban.
  September has been declared hunger action month--1 in 6 Americans are 
going without enough food to sustain a healthy life.
  The United States is considered to be the world's wealthiest nation 
but 14.5 percent or almost 49 million Americans do not get enough to 
eat.
  17 million children live in food insecure households. Children with 
inadequate nutrition are affected by cognitive and behavior development 
problems.
  The majority of SNAP recipients, about 68 percent, do not work; they 
are children, elderly, disabled or those caring for a disabled family 
member in their home or for a child less than 6 years of age.
  To qualify for SNAP benefits in Texas, a person cannot have more than 
$2,000 in a bank account and they can make more than $14,079 annually.
  The annual income limitations increase by nearly $5,000 for each 
additional person living in the household.
  To qualify for SNAP benefits, the combined income for a family of 
four cannot exceed $28,665.
  According to a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Texas has the third-highest rate of food insecurity in the 
nation--18.5 percent of households struggled to acquire enough healthy 
food in 2011. 14.7 percent of U.S. households had difficulty affording 
healthy food at some point in 2011.
  More than 3 million Americans, including 302,800 Texans, will lose 
food stamp benefits in 2013 if the U.S. Congress approves proposed 
federal cuts to the SNAP, according to the federal Office of Management 
and Budget. About 8.5 percent of Texans were enrolled in the program as 
of June 2012.
  Based on the estimates from the OMB, the Texas Food Bank Network 
calculated the number of Texans that would lose food stamp benefits in 
2013 by county.
  2 million rural households experience food insecurity. The counties 
in the United States with the highest disproportionately high rates of 
food insecurity are rural not urban or suburban.


                  We should pass the American Jobs Act

  Prior to the financial crisis, 26.3 million individuals a month on 
average received SNAP benefits, getting an average of $96 per month in 
benefits. Over the course of the ``Great Recession'' SNAP spending has 
increased from $33.2 billion for fiscal year 2007 to $78.4 billion for 
fiscal year 2012. The Congressional Budget Office says the economy is 
the cause of the nearly 65 percent increase in SNAP spending between 
2007 and 2011.
  The Congressional Budget Office said in its May 2013 baseline update 
estimate that SNAP participation would begin to decline as the economy 
continued to recover, falling to an average of $34.4 million per month.
  SNAP benefits also help those who earn 130 percent of the federal 
poverty guideline. 83 percent of SNAP households have gross income at 
or below 100 percent of the poverty guideline. This translates into 
incomes of $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013. These households receive 
about 91 percent of all benefits.
  Unemployment remains at 7.3 percent with about 11.3 million people 
unemployed. There are 6 million long term unemployed people who have 
been searching for work 27 weeks or longer.
  In July, unemployment percentages by state: Texas 6.5 percent, 
California 8.7 percent, Nevada 9.5 percent, North Carolina 8.9 percent, 
South Carolina 8.1 percent, Rhode Island 8.9 percent, Tennessee 8.5 
percent, Michigan 8.8 percent, Arizona 8.0 percent, and Arkansas 7.4 
percent.
  In August 2013, there were still 2 million fewer jobs than when the 
``Great Recession'' began in 2007. There are still 3 unemployed people 
for every new job created by the private sector. 60 percent of the jobs 
lost were mid-wage occupations--people who did not need Federal or 
State food assistance or housing assistance programs.
  Mid-wage good paying jobs make up only 22 percent of the new jobs 
created during the recovery. Low-wage jobs represented 21 percent of 
the jobs lost but now make up 58 percent of the new jobs.
  The need for SNAP is greater because the recovery is not as strong as 
it should be nor reaching the people it should reach.
  Over the last decade the number of households that were working or 
had no income while receiving SNAP more than tripled, from 2 million in 
2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011.


                This bill will hurt the most vulnerable

  Having SNAP funds does not guarantee access to nutritious food. The 
Department of Agriculture says that food deserts make it difficult for 
urban, suburban and rural poor to find nutritious food.
  A food desert according to the Department of Agriculture is a ``low-
access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 
percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a 
supermarket or large grocery store.
  The USDA defines a food desert for rural communities exists where the 
distance to a grocery store is more than 10 miles.
  In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of 
residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from 
a grocery store.
  Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask 
for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone.
  In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 
percent of households with children experiencing food hardship.
  In households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. 
Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.


           The bill is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban

  The bill creates a nationwide ``pilot program'' that directs states 
could impose new work requirements on SNAP recipients, including on 
parents of young children. The bill authorizes states to conduct drug 
testing of SNAP applicants as a condition of receiving benefits.
  The bill is blatantly anti-urban in calling for a pilot program to 
reduce retailer fraud be conducted in a large urban area that 
administers its own SNAP program.
  The bill requires that SNAP recipients receive at least $20 or more 
in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program (LIHEAP) before they could receive an increase in SNAP 
benefits.
  The bill before prohibits states from telling someone about SNAP food 
programs. The bill defines this type of communication as recruiting 
SNAP participants by advertising the SNAP program.
  The bill eliminates states' ability to waive work requirements. In 
addition the bill would impose new work requirements on parents of 
young children.
  The bill would restrict ``categorical eligibility'' this would impact 
people who qualify for other low-income aid.
  The bill requires that SNAP benefits be used by beneficiaries within 
60 days of being posted to an account. If they have the benefits then 
the benefits should be there when the opportunity to go to a store is 
available to them--which may be more than a 2 to 4 week period.
  People who are poor are not criminals and we should stop trying to 
treat them as if they committed a crime. This bill is right out of the 
47 percent playbook that was defeated last year during the Presidential 
Election and this bill needs to be defeated as well.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce 
net SNAP spending by 39 billion over 10 years and that 2.8 million 
people on average would lose their benefits while 850,000 would see 
benefits cut.

[[Page 13967]]

  SNAP benefits help the disabled, which include men and women who have 
served our nation during times of war. It is reported that nearly $53 
million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible to shop in 
base commissaries, including disabled veterans. The use of food stamps 
in commissaries increased 9 percent from 2012 to 2013. Military 
commissaries sold about $31 million under the Women, Infants and 
Children program in 2012 and nearly $15 million by June of this year.
  Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this 
Nation must have to exist and to prosper.
  Next year if this bill becomes law the nearly $40 billion cuts in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs also known as SNAP that is 
proposed by this bill 4 million Americans would fall though our 
Nation's food safety net.
  In 2011, according to Feeding America: 46.2 million people were in 
poverty, 9.5 million families were in poverty, 26.5 million of people 
ages 18-64 were in poverty, 16.1 million children under the age of 18 
were in poverty, 3.6 million (9.0 percent) seniors 65 and older were in 
poverty.
  In the State of Texas: 34% of children live in poverty in Texas, 21% 
of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas, 17% of elderly live in 
poverty in Texas.
  In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. census reports that over the 
last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.
  In 2011: 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 
33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children. Households with children 
reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those 
without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.


                       More Facts on Child Hunger

  According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 
million children under 18 in the United States live in households where 
they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food for a 
healthy life.


                            Food Insecurity

  16.7 million children lived in food insecure households in 2011. 20% 
or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food 
insecure households in 2011. In 2011, the top five states with the 
highest rate of food insecure children under 18 were New Mexico, the 
District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia.


                       Emergency Food Assistance

  Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding 
America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under. 54 percent of 
client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC).


                                Poverty

  In 2011, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the 
U.S. lived in poverty.


              Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs

  In fiscal year 2011, 47 percent of all SNAP households contained 
children. During the 2011 federal fiscal year, more than 31 million 
low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the 
National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.3 million children 
participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year.
  As elected representatives we should see our Nation's vital interest 
to be to feed hungry children and all hungry Americans.
  At the core of our vital interest is a stable and thriving economy, a 
strong and healthy population that is able to contribute to the 
economic engine that fuels our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and restore fully the food 
programs to the farm bill.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________