[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13978-14007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           NUTRITION REFORM AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2013

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and 
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3102

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Nutrition 
     Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is the following:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

           TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Sec. 101. Preventing payment of cash to recipients of supplemental 
              nutrition assistance benefits for the return of empty 
              bottles and cans used to contain food purchased with 
              benefits provided under the program.
Sec. 102. Retailers.
Sec. 103. Enhancing services to elderly and disabled supplemental 
              nutrition assistance program participants.
Sec. 104. Food distribution program on Indian reservations.
Sec. 105. Updating program eligibility.
Sec. 106. Exclusion of medical marijuana from excess medical expense 
              deduction.
Sec. 107. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy 
              assistance payments.
Sec. 108. Eligibility disqualifications.
Sec. 109. Repeal of State work program waiver authority.
Sec. 110. Ending supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits for 
              lottery or gambling winners.
Sec. 111. Improving security of food assistance.
Sec. 112. Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of mobile 
              transactions.
Sec. 113. Use of benefits for purchase of community-supported 
              agriculture share.
Sec. 114. Restaurant meals program.
Sec. 115. Mandating State immigration verification.
Sec. 116. Data exchange standardization for improved interoperability.
Sec. 117. Pilot projects to improve Federal-State cooperation in 
              identifying and reducing fraud in the supplemental 
              nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 118. Prohibiting Government-sponsored recruitment activities.
Sec. 119. Repeal of bonus program.
Sec. 120. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 121. Monitoring employment and training programs.
Sec. 122. Cooperation with program research and evaluation.
Sec. 123. Pilot projects to reduce dependency and increase work effort 
              in the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
Sec. 124. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 125. Limitation on use of block grant to Puerto Rico.
Sec. 126. Assistance for community food projects.
Sec. 127. Emergency food assistance.
Sec. 128. Nutrition education.
Sec. 129. Retailer trafficking.
Sec. 130. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 131. Tolerance level for excluding small errors.
Sec. 132. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program.
Sec. 133. Annual State report on verification of SNAP participation.
Sec. 134. Termination of existing agreement.
Sec. 135. Service of traditional foods in public facilities.
Sec. 136. Testing applicants for unlawful use of controlled substances.
Sec. 137. Eligibility disqualifications for certain convicted felons.
Sec. 138. Expungement of unused supplemental nutrition assistance 
              program benefits.
Sec. 139. Pilot projects to promote work and increase State 
              accountability in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
              program.
Sec. 140. Improved wage verification using the National Directory of 
              New Hires.
Sec. 141. Feasibility study for Indian tribes.

               TITLE II--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Commodity distribution program.
Sec. 202. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 203. Distribution of surplus commodities to special nutrition 
              projects.
Sec. 204. Processing of commodities.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Farmers' market nutrition program.
Sec. 302. Nutrition information and awareness pilot program.
Sec. 303. Fresh fruit and vegetable program.
Sec. 304. Additional authority for purchase of fresh fruits, 
              vegetables, and other specialty food crops.
Sec. 305. Encouraging locally and regionally grown and raised food.
Sec. 306. Review of public health benefits of white potatoes.
Sec. 307. Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Sec. 308. Review of sole-source contracts in Federal nutrition 
              programs.
Sec. 309. Purchase of Halal and Kosher food for emergency food 
              assistance program.

           TITLE I--SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. PREVENTING PAYMENT OF CASH TO RECIPIENTS OF 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE BENEFITS FOR 
                   THE RETURN OF EMPTY BOTTLES AND CANS USED TO 
                   CONTAIN FOOD PURCHASED WITH BENEFITS PROVIDED 
                   UNDER THE PROGRAM.

       Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and hot foods'' and inserting ``hot 
     foods''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``and any deposit 
     fee in excess of amount of the State fee reimbursement (if 
     any) required to purchase any food or food product contained 
     in a returnable bottle or can, regardless of whether such fee 
     is included in the shelf price posted for such food or food 
     product,''.

     SEC. 102. RETAILERS.

       (a) Definition of Retail Food Store.--Section 3(p)(1)(A) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)(1)(A)) 
     is amended

[[Page 13979]]

     by striking ``at least 2'' and inserting ``at least 3''.
       (b) Alternative Benefit Delivery.--Section 7(f) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Imposition of costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall require participating retailers 
     (including restaurants participating in a State option 
     restaurant program intended to serve the elderly, disabled, 
     and homeless) to pay 100 percent of the costs of acquiring, 
     and arrange for the implementation of, electronic benefit 
     transfer point-of-sale equipment and supplies.
       ``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt from 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) farmers' markets and other direct-to-consumer 
     markets, military commissaries, nonprofit food buying 
     cooperatives, and establishments, organizations, programs, or 
     group living arrangements described in paragraphs (5), (7), 
     and (8) of section 3(k); and
       ``(ii) establishments described in paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (9) of section 3(k), other than restaurants participating in 
     a State option restaurant program.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Termination of manual vouchers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective beginning on the effective 
     date of this paragraph, except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), no State shall issue manual vouchers to a household that 
     receives supplemental nutrition assistance under this Act or 
     allow retailers to accept manual vouchers as payment, unless 
     the Secretary determines that the manual vouchers are 
     necessary, such as in the event of an electronic benefit 
     transfer system failure or a disaster situation.
       ``(B) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt categories of 
     retailers or individual retailers from subparagraph (A) based 
     on criteria established by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Unique identification number required.--In an effort 
     to enhance the antifraud protections of the program, the 
     Secretary shall require all parties providing electronic 
     benefit transfer services to provide for and maintain a 
     unique business identification and a unique terminal 
     identification number information through the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program electronic benefit transfer 
     transaction routing system. In developing the regulations 
     implementing this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider 
     existing commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit 
     transactions. The Secretary shall issue proposed regulations 
     implementing this paragraph not earlier than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (c) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--Section 7(h)(3)(B) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(3)(B)) 
     is amended by striking ``is operational--'' and all that 
     follows through ``(ii) in the case of other participating 
     stores,'' and inserting ``is operational''.
       (d) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food 
     Concerns.--Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2018) is amended--
       (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a)(1) by striking ``; 
     and (C)'' and inserting ``; (C) whether the applicant is 
     located in an area with significantly limited access to food; 
     and (D)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) EBT Service Requirement.--An approved retail food 
     store shall provide adequate EBT service as described in 
     section 7(h)(3)(B).''.

     SEC. 103. ENHANCING SERVICES TO ELDERLY AND DISABLED 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   PARTICIPANTS.

       (a) Enhancing Services to Elderly and Disabled Program 
     Participants.--Section 3(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(p)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) a governmental or private nonprofit food purchasing 
     and delivery service that--
       ``(A) purchases food for, and delivers such food to, 
     individuals who are--
       ``(i) unable to shop for food; and
       ``(ii)(I) not less than 60 years of age; or
       ``(II) physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise 
     disabled;
       ``(B) clearly notifies the participating household at the 
     time such household places a food order--
       ``(i) of any delivery fee associated with the food purchase 
     and delivery provided to such household by such service; and
       ``(ii) that a delivery fee cannot be paid with benefits 
     provided under supplemental nutrition assistance program; and
       ``(C) sells food purchased for such household at the price 
     paid by such service for such food and without any additional 
     cost markup.''.
       (b) Implementation.--
       (1) Issuance of rules.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue regulations that--
       (A) establish criteria to identify a food purchasing and 
     delivery service referred to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 as amended by this Act, and
       (B) establish procedures to ensure that such service--
       (i) does not charge more for a food item than the price 
     paid by the such service for such food item,
       (ii) offers food delivery service at no or low cost to 
     households under such Act,
       (iii) ensures that benefits provided under the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program are used only to purchase food, 
     as defined in section 3 of such Act,
       (iv) limits the purchase of food, and the delivery of such 
     food, to households eligible to receive services described in 
     section 3(p)(5) of such Act as so amended,
       (v) has established adequate safeguards against fraudulent 
     activities, including unauthorized use of electronic benefit 
     cards issued under such Act, and
       (vi) such other requirements as the Secretary deems to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Limitation.--Before the issuance of rules under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Agriculture may not approve 
     more than 20 food purchasing and delivery services referred 
     to in section 3(p)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     as amended by this Act, to participate as retail food stores 
     under the supplemental nutrition assistance program.

     SEC. 104. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

       Section 4(b)(6)(F) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2013(b)(6)(F)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2016''.

     SEC. 105. UPDATING PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014) is amended--
       (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking 
     ``households in which each member receives benefits'' and 
     inserting ``households in which each member receives cash 
     assistance'', and
       (2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives 
     benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who 
     receives cash assistance under a State program''.

     SEC. 106. EXCLUSION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EXCESS MEDICAL 
                   EXPENSE DEDUCTION.

       Section 5(e)(5) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Exclusion of medical marijuana.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate rules to ensure that medical marijuana is not 
     treated as a medical expense for purposes of this 
     paragraph.''.

     SEC. 107. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT OF 
                   ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Standard Utility Allowances in the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program.--Section 5(e)(6)(C) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by inserting ``, subject to clause (iv)'' 
     after ``Secretary''; and
       (2) by striking subclause (I) of clause (iv) and inserting 
     the following:

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if a State 
     agency elects to use a standard utility allowance that 
     reflects heating and cooling costs, the standard utility 
     allowance shall be made available to households that received 
     a payment, or on behalf of which a payment was made, under 
     the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8621 et seq.) or other similar energy assistance program, if 
     in the current month or in the immediately preceding 12 
     months, the household either received such payment, or such 
     payment was made on behalf of the household, that was greater 
     than $20 annually, as determined by the Secretary.''; and

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the 
     Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8624(f)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that, for purposes of the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program established under 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), 
     such payments or allowances were greater than $20 annually, 
     consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I) of that Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)), as determined by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture''.
       (c) Effective Date and Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section and the amendments made by this section shall take 
     effect on October 1, 2013, and shall apply with respect to 
     certification periods that begin after such date.
       (2) State option to delay implementation for current 
     recipients.--A State may, at the option of the State, 
     implement a policy that eliminates or reduces the effect of 
     the amendments made by this section on households that 
     received a standard utility allowance as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, for not more than a 180-day period 
     that begins on the date on which such amendments would 
     otherwise apply to the respective household.

     SEC. 108. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS.

       Section 6(e)(3)(B) of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(e)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``section;'' and 
     inserting the following: ``section, subject to the condition 
     that the course or program of study--''
       ``(i) is part of a program of career and technical 
     education (as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins 
     Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302)) 
     that may

[[Page 13980]]

     be completed in not more than 4 years at an institution of 
     higher education (as defined in section 102 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)); or
       ``(ii) is limited to remedial courses, basic adult 
     education, literacy, or English as a second language;''.

     SEC. 109. REPEAL OF STATE WORK PROGRAM WAIVER AUTHORITY.

       Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(o)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(D) by striking ``(5), or (6)'' and 
     inserting ``or (5)'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (4);
       (3) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
       (i) by striking subclause (II);
       (ii) in subclause (V) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting 
     ``(4)''; and
       (iii) by redesignating subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) as 
     subclauses (II), (III), and (IV), respectively;
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``(G)'' and inserting 
     ``(H)'';
       (C) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and each subsequent 
     fiscal year'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2013'';
       (D) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and each subsequent 
     fiscal year'' and inserting ``through fiscal year 2013''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Fiscal year 2014 and thereafter.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (G), for fiscal year 2014 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year, a State agency may provide a number of 
     exemptions such that the average monthly number of the 
     exemptions in effect during the fiscal year does not exceed 
     15 percent of the number of individuals identified as 
     `Nondisabled Adults Age 18-49 in Childless Households' in the 
     table `B.5 Distribution of Participating Households by 
     Household Composition and by State' of the report entitled 
     Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     Households: Fiscal Year 2011 (Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR) prepared for and 
     published by the Office of Research and Analysis of the Food 
     and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture in 
     November 2012.''; and
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.

     SEC. 110. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   BENEFITS FOR LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(r) Ineligibility for Benefits Due to Receipt of 
     Substantial Lottery or Gambling Winnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any household in which a member receives 
     substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by 
     the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for benefits 
     immediately upon receipt of the winnings.
       ``(2) Duration of ineligibility.--A household described in 
     paragraph (1) shall remain ineligible for participation until 
     the household meets the allowable financial resources and 
     income eligibility requirements under subsections (c), (d), 
     (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
       ``(3) Agreements.--As determined by the Secretary, each 
     State agency, to the maximum extent practicable, shall 
     establish agreements with entities responsible for the 
     regulation or sponsorship of gaming in the State to determine 
     whether individuals participating in the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program have received substantial 
     lottery or gambling winnings.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) is amended in the 2d 
     sentence by striking ``sections 6(b), 6(d)(2), and 6(g)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (b), (d)(2), (g), and (r) of section 
     6''.

     SEC. 111. IMPROVING SECURITY OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       Section 7(h)(8) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)(8)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading by striking ``card fee'' and inserting 
     ``of cards'';
       (2) by striking ``A State'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Fees.--A State''; and
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (A) (as so designated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(B) Purposeful loss of cards.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary in accordance with clause (ii), 
     if a household makes excessive requests for replacement of 
     the electronic benefit transfer card of the household, the 
     Secretary may require a State agency to decline to issue a 
     replacement card to the household unless the household, upon 
     request of the State agency, provides an explanation for the 
     loss of the card.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--The terms and conditions established 
     by the Secretary shall provide that--

       ``(I) the household be given the opportunity to provide the 
     requested explanation and meet the requirements under this 
     paragraph promptly;
       ``(II) after an excessive number of lost cards, the head of 
     the household shall be required to review program rights and 
     responsibilities with State agency personnel authorized to 
     make determinations under section 5(a); and
       ``(III) any action taken, including actions required under 
     section 6(b)(2), other than the withholding of the electronic 
     benefit transfer card until an explanation described in 
     subclause (I) is provided, shall be consistent with the due 
     process protections under section 6(b) or 11(e)(10), as 
     appropriate.

       ``(C) Protecting vulnerable persons.--In implementing this 
     paragraph, a State agency shall act to protect homeless 
     persons, persons with disabilities, victims of crimes, and 
     other vulnerable persons who lose electronic benefit transfer 
     cards but are not intentionally committing fraud.
       ``(D) Effect on eligibility.--While a State may decline to 
     issue an electronic benefits transfer card until a household 
     satisfies the requirements under this paragraph, nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be considered a denial of, or limitation 
     on, the eligibility for benefits under section 5.''.

     SEC. 112. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ON ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS OF 
                   MOBILE TRANSACTIONS.

       Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14) Demonstration projects on acceptance of benefits of 
     mobile transactions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pilot the use of 
     mobile technologies determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate to test the feasibility and implications for 
     program integrity, by allowing retail food stores, farmers 
     markets, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing 
     outlets to accept benefits from recipients of supplemental 
     nutrition assistance through mobile transactions.
       ``(B) Demonstration projects.--To be eligible to 
     participate in a demonstration project under subsection (a), 
     a retail food store, farmers market, or other direct 
     producer-to-consumer marketing outlet shall submit to the 
     Secretary for approval a plan that includes--
       ``(i) a description of the technology;
       ``(ii) the manner by which the retail food store, farmers 
     market or other direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlet 
     will provide proof of the transaction to households;
       ``(iii) the provision of data to the Secretary, consistent 
     with requirements established by the Secretary, in a manner 
     that allows the Secretary to evaluate the impact of the 
     demonstration on participant access, ease of use, and program 
     integrity; and
       ``(iv) such other criteria as the Secretary may require.
       ``(C) Date of completion.--The demonstration projects under 
     this paragraph shall be completed and final reports submitted 
     to the Secretary by not later than July 1, 2016.
       ``(D) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate that includes a finding, based on 
     the data provided under subparagraph (C) whether or not 
     implementation in all States is in the best interest of the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program.''.

     SEC. 113. USE OF BENEFITS FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY-SUPPORTED 
                   AGRICULTURE SHARE.

       Section 10 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2019) is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting 
     ``agricultural producers who market agricultural products 
     directly to consumers shall be authorized to redeem benefits 
     for the initial cost of the purchase of a community-supported 
     agriculture share,'' after ``food so purchased,''.

     SEC. 114. RESTAURANT MEALS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 11(e) of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23)(C) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) if the State elects to carry out a program to 
     contract with private establishments to offer meals at 
     concessional prices, as described in paragraphs (3), (4), and 
     (9) of section 3(k)--
       ``(A) the plans of the State agency for operating the 
     program, including--
       ``(i) documentation of a need that eligible homeless, 
     elderly, and disabled clients are underserved in a particular 
     geographic area;
       ``(ii) the manner by which the State agency will limit 
     participation to only those private establishments that the 
     State determines necessary to meet the need identified in 
     clause (i); and
       ``(iii) any other conditions the Secretary may prescribe, 
     such as the level of security necessary to ensure that only 
     eligible recipients participate in the program; and
       ``(B) a report by the State agency to the Secretary 
     annually, the schedule of which shall be established by the 
     Secretary, that includes--
       ``(i) the number of households and individual recipients 
     authorized to participate in the program, including any 
     information on whether the individual recipient is elderly, 
     disabled, or homeless; and
       ``(ii) an assessment of whether the program is meeting an 
     established need, as documented under subparagraph (A)(i).''.
       (b) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food 
     Concerns.--Section 9 of

[[Page 13981]]

     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2018) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Private Establishments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no private 
     establishment that contracts with a State agency to offer 
     meals at concessional prices as described in paragraphs (3), 
     (4), and (9) of section 3(k) may be authorized to accept and 
     redeem benefits unless the Secretary determines that the 
     participation of the private establishment is required to 
     meet a documented need in accordance with section 11(e)(24).
       ``(2) Existing contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, on the day before the effective date 
     of this subsection, a State has entered into a contract with 
     a private establishment described in paragraph (1) and the 
     Secretary has not determined that the participation of the 
     private establishment is necessary to meet a documented need 
     in accordance with section 11(e)(24), the Secretary shall 
     allow the operation of the private establishment to continue 
     without that determination of need for a period not to exceed 
     180 days from the date on which the Secretary establishes 
     determination criteria, by regulation, under section 
     11(e)(24).
       ``(B) Justification.--If the Secretary determines to 
     terminate a contract with a private establishment that is in 
     effect on the effective date of this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall provide justification to the State in which 
     the private establishment is located for that termination.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     September 30, 2014, and 90 days after the last day of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate on the effectiveness of a program under this 
     subsection using any information received from States under 
     section 11(e)(24) as well as any other information the 
     Secretary may have relating to the manner in which benefits 
     are used.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3(k) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)) is amended by 
     inserting ``subject to section 9(h)'' after ``concessional 
     prices'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 115. MANDATING STATE IMMIGRATION VERIFICATION.

       Section 11(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2020(p)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(p) State Verification Option.--In carrying out the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program, a State agency 
     shall be required to use an income and eligibility, or an 
     immigration status, verification system established under 
     section 1137 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7), 
     in accordance with standards set by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 116. DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED 
                   INTEROPERABILITY.

       (a) Data Exchange Standardization.--Section 11 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Data Exchange Standards for Improved 
     Interoperability.--
       ``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with an interagency work group established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget, and considering State government 
     perspectives, designate data exchange standards to govern, 
     under this part--
       ``(A) necessary categories of information that State 
     agencies operating such programs are required under 
     applicable law to electronically exchange with another State 
     agency; and
       ``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under 
     applicable law.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required 
     by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary, 
     searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible 
     Markup Language;
       ``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the 
     National Information Exchange Model;
       ``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by Federal entities with authority over 
     contracting and financial assistance;
       ``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable 
     accounting principles;
       ``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and 
     improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
       ``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to require a change to existing data 
     exchange standards for Federal reporting found to be 
     effective and efficient.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall issue a proposed 
     rule within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The rule shall identify federally required data 
     exchanges, include specification and timing of exchanges to 
     be standardized, and address the factors used in determining 
     whether and when to standardize data exchanges. It should 
     also specify state implementation options and describe future 
     milestones.

     SEC. 117. PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION 
                   IN IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FRAUD IN THE 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2021) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Pilot Projects To Improve Federal-State Cooperation 
     in Identifying and Reducing Fraud in the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under 
     such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, 
     pilot projects to test innovative Federal-State partnerships 
     to identify, investigate, and reduce retailer fraud in the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program, including allowing 
     States to operate retail Food Store investigation programs. 
     At least 1 such pilot project shall be carried out in an 
     urban area that is among the 10 largest urban areas in the 
     United States (based on population) if the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program is separately administered in 
     such area and if the administration of such program in such 
     area complies with the other applicable requirements of such 
     program.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected 
     based on criteria the Secretary establishes, which shall 
     include--
       ``(A) enhancing existing efforts by the Secretary to reduce 
     retailer fraud;
       ``(B) requiring participant States to maintain their 
     overall level of effort at addressing recipient fraud, as 
     determined by the Secretary, prior to participation in the 
     pilot project;
       ``(C) collaborating with other law enforcement authorities 
     as necessary to carry out an effective pilot project;
       ``(D) commitment of the participant State agency to follow 
     Federal rules and procedures with respect to retailer 
     investigations; and
       ``(E) the extent to which a State has committed resources 
     to recipient fraud and the relative success of those efforts.
       ``(3) Evaluation.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall evaluate the projects selected 
     under this subsection to measure the impact of the pilot 
     projects.
       ``(B) Such evaluation shall include--
       ``(i) each pilot project's impact on increasing the 
     Secretary's capacity to address retailer fraud;
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the pilot projects in 
     identifying, preventing and reducing retailer fraud; and
       ``(iii) the cost effectiveness of such pilot projects.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 
     2017, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate, a 
     report that includes a description of the results of each 
     pilot project, including an evaluation of the impact of the 
     project on retailer fraud and the costs associated with each 
     pilot project.
       ``(5) Funding.--Any costs incurred by the State to operate 
     the pilot projects in excess of the amount expended under 
     this Act for retailer fraud in the respective State in the 
     previous fiscal year shall not be eligible for Federal 
     reimbursement under this Act.''.

     SEC. 118. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RECRUITMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Administrative Cost-Sharing and Quality Control.--
     Section 16(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``recruitment activities'' the following: ``designed to 
     persuade an individual to apply for program benefits or that 
     promote the program via television, radio, or billboard 
     advertisements''.
       (b) Limitation on Use of Funds Authorized To Be 
     Appropriated Under Act.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Ban on Recruitment and Promotion Activities.--(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds authorized to 
     be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Secretary 
     for--
       ``(A) recruitment activities designed to persuade an 
     individual to apply for supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program benefits;
       ``(B) television, radio, or billboard advertisements that 
     are designed to promote supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program benefits and enrollment; or
       ``(C) any agreements with foreign governments designed to 
     promote supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits 
     and enrollment.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to programmatic 
     activities undertaken with respect to benefits made available 
     in response to a natural disaster.''.
       (c) Ban on Recruitment Activities by Entities That Receive 
     Funds.--Section 18 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Ban on Recruitment by Entities That Receive Funds.--
     The Secretary shall issue regulations that forbid entities 
     that receive funds under this Act to compensate

[[Page 13982]]

     any person for conducting outreach activities relating to 
     participation in, or for recruiting individuals to apply to 
     receive benefits under, the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program if the amount of such compensation would be based on 
     the number of individuals who apply to receive such 
     benefits.''.

     SEC. 119. REPEAL OF BONUS PROGRAM.

       Section 16(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(d)) is repealed.

     SEC. 120. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       Section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``$90,000,000'' and all that follows through ``$79,000,000'', 
     and inserting ``$79,000,000 for each fiscal year''.

     SEC. 121. MONITORING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Reporting Measures.--Section 16(h)(5) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(5)) is amended to 
     read:
       ``(5)(A) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor the 
     employment and training programs carried out by State 
     agencies under section 6(d)(4) and assess their effectiveness 
     in--
       ``(i) preparing members of households participating in the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program for employment, 
     including the acquisition of basic skills necessary for 
     employment; and
       ``(ii) increasing the numbers of household members who 
     obtain and retain employment subsequent to their 
     participation in such employment and training programs.
       ``(B) Reporting measures.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Labor, shall develop reporting measures 
     that identify improvements in the skills, training education 
     or work experience of members of households participating in 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Measures shall 
     be based on common measures of performance for federal 
     workforce training programs, so long as they reflect the 
     challenges facing the types of members of households 
     participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program who participate in a specific employment and training 
     component. The Secretary shall require that each State 
     employment and training plan submitted under section 
     11(e)(19) identify appropriate reporting measures for each of 
     their proposed components that serve at least 100 people. 
     Such measures may include:
       ``(i) the percentage and number of program participants who 
     received employment and training services and are in 
     unsubsidized employment subsequent to the receipt of those 
     services;
       ``(ii) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who obtain a recognized postsecondary credential, including a 
     registered apprenticeship, or a regular secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent, while participating in 
     or within 1 year after receiving employment and training 
     services;
       ``(iii) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who are in an education or training program that is intended 
     to lead to a recognized postsecondary credential, including a 
     registered apprenticeship or on-the-job training program, a 
     regular secondary school diploma or its recognized 
     equivalent, or unsubsidized employment;
       ``(iv) subject to the terms and conditions set by the 
     Secretary, measures developed by each State agency to assess 
     the skills acquisition of employment and training program 
     participants that reflect the goals of their specific 
     employment and training program components, which may 
     include, but are not limited to--
       ``(I) the percentage and number of program participants who 
     are meeting program requirements in each component of the 
     State's education and training program; and
       ``(II) the percentage and number of program participants 
     who are gaining skills likely to lead to employment as 
     measured through testing, quantitative or qualitative 
     assessment or other method; and
       ``(v) other indicators as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(C) State report.--Each State agency shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary a report on the State's 
     employment and training program that includes the numbers of 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program participants who 
     have gained skills, training, work or experience that will 
     increase their ability to obtain regular employment using 
     measures identified in subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Modifications to the state employment and training 
     plan.--Subject to the terms and conditions established by the 
     Secretary, if the Secretary determines that the state 
     agency's performance with respect to employment and training 
     outcomes is inadequate, the Secretary may require the State 
     agency to make modifications to their employment and training 
     plan to improve such outcomes.
       ``(E) Periodic evaluation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to terms and conditions 
     established by the Secretary, not later than October 1, 2016, 
     and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to review existing 
     practice and research to identify employment and training 
     program components and practices that--
       ``(I) effectively assist members of households 
     participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program in gaining skills, training, work, or experience that 
     will increase their ability to obtain regular employment, and
       ``(II) are best integrated with statewide workforce 
     development systems.
       ``(ii) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report that describes the results of the study under clause 
     (i) to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 
     and Forestry in the Senate.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4(c) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), the 
     Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) no later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act. States shall include 
     such reporting measures in their employment and training 
     plans for the 1st fiscal year thereafter that begins no 
     sooner than 6 months after the date that such regulations are 
     published.

     SEC. 122. COOPERATION WITH PROGRAM RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.

       Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2026) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Cooperation With Program Research and Evaluation.--
     States, State agencies, local agencies, institutions, 
     facilities such as data consortiums, and contractors 
     participating in programs authorized under this Act shall 
     cooperate with officials and contractors acting on behalf of 
     the Secretary in the conduct of evaluations and studies under 
     this Act and shall submit information at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary may require.''.

     SEC. 123. PILOT PROJECTS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY AND INCREASE 
                   WORK EFFORT IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2026), as amended by section 121, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(m) Pilot Projects To Reduce Dependency and Increase Work 
     Effort in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, under 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers to be 
     appropriate, pilot projects to identify best practices for 
     employment and training programs under this Act to raise the 
     number of work registrants who obtain unsubsidized 
     employment, increase their earned income, and reduce their 
     reliance on public assistance, including but not limited to 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--Pilot projects shall be selected 
     based on criteria the Secretary establishes, that shall 
     include--
       ``(A) enhancing existing employment and training programs 
     in the State;
       ``(B) agreeing to participate in the evaluation described 
     in paragraph (3), including making available data on 
     participants' employment activities and post-participation 
     employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt;
       ``(C) collaborating with the State workforce board and 
     other job training programs in the State and local area;
       ``(D) the extent to which the pilot project's components 
     can be easily replicated by other States or political 
     subdivisions; and
       ``(E) such additional criteria that ensure that the pilot 
     projects--
       ``(i) target a variety of populations of work registrants, 
     including childless adults, parents, and individuals with low 
     skills or limited work experience;
       ``(ii) are selected from a range of existing employment and 
     training programs including programs that provide--

       ``(I) section 20 workfare;
       ``(II) skills development for work registrants with limited 
     employment history;
       ``(III) post-employment support services necessary for 
     maintaining employment; and
       ``(IV) education leading to a recognized postsecondary 
     credential, registered apprenticeship, or secondary school 
     diploma or its equivalent;

       ``(iii) are located in a range of geographic areas, 
     including rural, urban, and Indian reservations; and
       ``(iv) include participants who are exempt and not exempt 
     under section (6)(d)(2).
       ``(3) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall provide for an 
     independent evaluation of projects selected under this 
     subsection to measure the impact of the pilot projects on the 
     ability of each pilot project target population to find and 
     retain employment that leads to increased household income 
     and reduced dependency, compared to what would have occurred 
     in the absence of the pilot project.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--By September 30, 2017, the 
     Secretary shall submit, to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, a report 
     that includes a description of--
       ``(A) the results of each pilot project, including an 
     evaluation of the impact of the project on the employment, 
     income, and public benefit receipt of the targeted population 
     of work registrants;

[[Page 13983]]

       ``(B) the Federal, State, and other costs of each pilot 
     project;
       ``(C) the planned dissemination of the reports' findings 
     with State agencies; and
       ``(D) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate 
     components of pilot projects that demonstrate increased 
     employment and earnings into State employment and training 
     programs.
       ``(5) Funding.--From amounts made available under section 
     18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make $10,000,000 available for 
     each of the fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 to carry out 
     this subsection. Such amounts shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(6) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) Funds provided under this subsection for pilot 
     projects shall be used only for--
       ``(i) pilot projects that comply with the provisions of 
     this Act;
       ``(ii) the costs and administration of the pilot projects;
       ``(iii) the costs incurred in providing information and 
     data to the independent evaluation under paragraph (3); and
       ``(iv) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Funds made available under this subsection may not be 
     used to supplant non-Federal funds used for existing 
     employment and training activities.''.

     SEC. 124. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.

     SEC. 125. LIMITATION ON USE OF BLOCK GRANT TO PUERTO RICO.

       Section 19(a)(2)(B) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds made 
     available to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under this 
     subparagraph may be used to provide nutrition assistance in 
     the form of cash benefits.''.

     SEC. 126. ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 25(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034(a)(1)(B)(i)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subclause (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subclause (III) by striking ``or'' at the end and 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(IV) to provide incentives for the consumption of fruits 
     and vegetables among low-income individuals; or''.
       (b) Additional Funding.--Section 25(b) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less 
     than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter. Of the amount made available under this 
     subparagraph for each such fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out subsection (a)(1)(B)(I)(IV).
       ``(B) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section, the funds transferred under subparagraph (A) 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(C) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     subparagraph (A) shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding made available to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 127. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Purchase of Commodities.--Section 27(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2008 through 2012'' and 
     inserting ``2013 through 2016'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C), and inserting the following:
       ``(A) for fiscal year 2013, $265,750,000;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2014, the dollar amount of 
     commodities specified in subparagraph (A) adjusted by the 
     percentage by which the thrifty food plan has been adjusted 
     under section 3(u)(4) between June 30, 2012 and June 30, 
     2013, and increased by $70,000,000;
       ``(C) for fiscal year 2015, the dollar amount of 
     commodities determined for fiscal year 2014 under 
     subparagraph (B) adjusted by the percentage by which the 
     thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section 3(u)(4) 
     between June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014;
       ``(D) for fiscal year 2016, the dollar amount of 
     commodities determined for fiscal year 2015 under 
     subparagraph (C) adjusted by the percentage by which the 
     thrifty food plan has been adjusted under section 3(u)(4) 
     between June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2015, and reduced by 
     $50,000,000; and
       ``(E) for each subsequent fiscal year, the dollar amount of 
     commodities determined for the preceding fiscal year adjusted 
     to reflect the percentage by which the thrifty food plan has 
     been adjusted under section 3(u)(4) for the 12-month period 
     ending on the preceding June 30.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Funds availability.--For purposes of the funds 
     described in this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make the funds available for 2 fiscal years; and
       ``(B) allow States to carry over unexpended balances to the 
     next fiscal year pursuant to such terms and conditions as are 
     determined by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Emergency Food Program Infrastructure Grants.--Section 
     209(d) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 
     7511a(d)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2016''.

     SEC. 128. NUTRITION EDUCATION.

       Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2036a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by inserting ``and physical 
     activity'' after ``healthy food choices''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``$401,000,000;'' and 
     inserting ``$372,000,000; and'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
       (C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``(F) for fiscal year 
     2016'' and inserting ``(E) for fiscal year 2015''.

     SEC. 129. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.

       The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 29. RETAILER TRAFFICKING.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     the Department of Agriculture with additional resources to 
     prevent trafficking in violation of this Act by strengthening 
     recipient and retailer program integrity. Additional funds 
     are provided to supplement the Department's payment accuracy, 
     and retailer and recipient integrity activities.
       ``(b) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer to the Secretary to carry out this section not less 
     than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
       ``(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1) 
     without further appropriation.
       ``(3) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding for programs carried out under this Act.''.

     SEC. 130. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g) by striking ``coupon,'' the last 
     place it appears and inserting ``coupon'';
       (2) in subsection (k)(7) by striking ``or are'' and 
     inserting ``and'';
       (3) by striking subsection (l);
       (4) by redesignating subsections (m) through (t) as 
     subsections (l) through (s), respectively; and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (s) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(t) `Supplemental nutritional assistance program' means 
     the program operated pursuant to this Act.''.
       (b) Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended by striking ``benefits'' the last 
     place it appears and inserting ``Benefits''.
       (c) Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (1) in the last sentence of subsection (i)(2)(D) by 
     striking ``section 13(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     13(b)''; and
       (2) in subsection (k)(4)(A) by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)(H)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(G)''.
       (d) Section 6(d)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(vii) by moving the left margin 4 
     ems to the left, and
       (2) in subparagraph (F)(iii) by moving the left margin 6 
     ems to the left.
       (e) Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended by redesignating the 2d paragraph 
     (12) as paragraph (13).
       (f) Section 12 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2021) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3)(C) by striking ``civil money 
     penalties'' and inserting ``civil penalties''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``(7 U.S.C. 1786)'' 
     and inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 1786)''.
       (g) Section 15(b)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2024(b)(1)) is amended in the 1st sentence by 
     striking ``an benefit'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``a benefit''.
       (h) Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended in the proviso following paragraph 
     (8) by striking ``, as amended.''.
       (i) Section 18(e) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027(e)) is amended in the 1st sentence by striking 
     ``sections 7(f)'' and inserting ``section 7(f)''.
       (j) Section 22(b)(10)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(b)(10)(B)(i)) is amended in the last 
     sentence by striking ``Food benefits'' and inserting 
     ``Benefits''.
       (k) Section 26(f)(3)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2035(f)(3)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection'' and inserting ``subsections''.

[[Page 13984]]

       (l) Section 27(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Public Law 
     98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)'' and inserting ``(7 U.S.C. 
     7515)''.
       (m) Section 509 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3056g) is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS'' and inserting ``SUPPLEMENTAL 
     NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM''.
       (n) Section 4115(c)(2)(H) of the Food, Conservation, and 
     Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1871) is 
     amended by striking ``531'' and inserting ``454''.
       (o) Section 3803(c)(2)(C)(vii) of title 31 of the United 
     States Code is amended by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''.
       (p) Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``section 3(l)'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(s)''.
       (q) The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c) is amended--
       (1) in section 4(a) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 1977'' 
     and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (2) in section 5--
       (A) in subsection (i)(1) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 
     1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (B) in subsection (l)(2)(B) by striking ``Food Stamp Act of 
     1977'' and inserting ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008''.
       (r) The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the heading of section 453(j)(10) by striking ``food 
     stamp'' and inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance'';
       (2) in section 1137--
       (A) in subsection (a)(5)(B) by striking ``food stamp'' and 
     inserting ``supplemental nutrition assistance''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(4) by striking ``food stamp program 
     under the Food Stamp Act of 1977'' and inserting 
     ``supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008''; and
       (3) in the heading of section 1631(n) by striking ``Food 
     Stamp'' and inserting ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance''.

     SEC. 131. TOLERANCE LEVEL FOR EXCLUDING SMALL ERRORS.

       The Secretary shall set the tolerance level for excluding 
     small errors for the purposes of section 16(c) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(c))--
       (1) for fiscal year 2014 at an amount no greater than $25; 
     and
       (2) for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount specified 
     in paragraph (1) adjusted by the percentage by which the 
     thrifty food plan is adjusted under section 3(u)(4) of such 
     Act between June 30, 2012, and June 30 of the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 132. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to establishing the pilot program 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     be completed not later than 2 years after the effective date 
     of this section to assess--
       (A) the capabilities of the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program in the same manner in which the program is 
     operated in the States (as defined in section 3 of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)); and
       (B) alternative models of the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program operation and benefit delivery that best 
     meet the nutrition assistance needs of the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (2) Scope.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)(A) will 
     assess the capability of the Commonwealth to fulfill the 
     responsibilities of a State agency, including--
       (A) extending and limiting participation to eligible 
     households, as prescribed by sections 5 and 6 of the Act;
       (B) issuing benefits through EBT cards, as prescribed by 
     section 7 of the Act;
       (C) maintaining the integrity of the program, including 
     operation of a quality control system, as prescribed by 
     section 16(c) of the Act;
       (D) implementing work requirements, including operating an 
     employment and training program, as prescribed by section 
     6(d) of the Act; and
       (E) paying a share of administrative costs with non-Federal 
     funds, as prescribed by section 16(a) of the Act.
       (b) Establishment.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     pilot program is feasible, the Secretary shall establish a 
     pilot program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands to operate the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program in the same manner in which the program is operated 
     in the States.
       (c) Scope.--The Secretary shall utilize the information 
     obtained from the study conducted under subsection (a) to 
     establish the scope of the pilot program established under 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2019, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report on the pilot program 
     carried out under this section, including an analysis of the 
     feasibility of operating in the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
     as it is operated in the States.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Study.--Of the funds made available under section 
     18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the Secretary 
     may use not more than $1,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2014 
     and 2015 to conduct the study described in subsection (a).
       (2) Pilot program.--Of the funds made available under 
     section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, for 
     the purposes of establishing and carrying out the pilot 
     program established under subsection (b) of this section, 
     including the Federal costs for providing technical 
     assistance to the Commonwealth, authorizing and monitoring 
     retail food stores, and assessing pilot operations, the 
     Secretary may use not more than--
       (A) $13,500,000 in fiscal year 2016; and
       (B) $8,500,000 in each of fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

     SEC. 133. ANNUAL STATE REPORT ON VERIFICATION OF SNAP 
                   PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Annual Report.--Not later 1 year after the date 
     specified by the Secretary in the 180-period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     each State agency that carries out the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program shall submit to the Secretary a report 
     containing sufficient information for the Secretary to 
     determine whether the State agency has, for the then most 
     recently concluded fiscal year preceding such annual date, 
     verified that households to which such State agency provided 
     such assistance in such fiscal year--
       (1) did not obtain benefits attributable to a deceased 
     individual;
       (2) did not include an individual who was simultaneously 
     included in a household receiving such assistance in another 
     State; and
       (3) did not include, during the time benefits were 
     provided, an individual who was then disqualified from 
     receiving benefits.
       (b) Penalty for Noncompliance.--For any fiscal year for 
     which a State agency fails to comply with subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall reduce by 50 percent the amount otherwise 
     payable to such State agency under section 16(a) of the Food 
     and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to such fiscal year.

     SEC. 134. TERMINATION OF EXISTING AGREEMENT.

       Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     memorandum of understanding entered into on July 22, 2004, by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the 
     Republic of Mexico and known as the ``Partnership for 
     Nutrition Assistance Initiative'' is null and void.

     SEC. 135. SERVICE OF TRADITIONAL FOODS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Food service program.--The term ``food service 
     program'' includes--
       (A) food service at a residential child care facility with 
     a license from an appropriate State agency;
       (B) a child nutrition program (as defined in section 25(b) 
     of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1769f(b));
       (C) food service at a hospital or clinic or long term care 
     facility; and
       (D) a senior meal program.
       (2) Indian; indian tribe; indian tribal organization.--The 
     terms ``Indian''; ``Indian tribe''; and ``Indian Tribal 
     Organization'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (3) Traditional food.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``traditional food'' means food 
     that has traditionally been prepared and consumed by an 
     Indian tribe.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``traditional food'' includes--
       (i) wild game meat;
       (ii) fish;
       (iii) seafood;
       (iv) marine mammals;
       (v) plants; and
       (vi) berries.
       (b) Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary shall allow the donation to and serving of 
     traditional food through a food service program at a public 
     facility, nonprofit facility, including facilities operated 
     by an Indian tribe or tribal organization that primarily 
     serves Indians if the operator of the food service program--
       (1) ensures that the food is received whole, gutted, 
     gilled, as quarters, or as a roast, without further 
     processing;
       (2) makes a reasonable determination that--
       (A) the animal was not diseased;
       (B) the food was butchered, dressed, transported, and 
     stored to prevent contamination, undesirable microbial 
     growth, or deterioration; and
       (C) the food will not cause a significant health hazard or 
     potential for human illness;
       (3) carries out any further preparation or processing of 
     the food at a different time or in a different space from the 
     preparation or processing of other food for the applicable 
     program to prevent cross-contamination;

[[Page 13985]]

       (4) cleans and sanitizes food-contact surfaces of equipment 
     and utensils after processing the traditional food; and
       (5) labels donated traditional food with the name of the 
     food and stores the traditional food separately from other 
     food for the applicable program, including through storage in 
     a separate freezer or refrigerator or in a separate 
     compartment or shelf in the freezer or refrigerator.
       (c) Liability.--Liability for damages from donated 
     traditional food and products to the participating food 
     service program shall not be subject to civil or criminal 
     liability arising from the nature, age, packaging, or 
     condition of donated food.

     SEC. 136. TESTING APPLICANTS FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015), as amended by section 109, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(s) Testing Applicants for Unlawful Use of Controlled 
     Substances.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this Act, or in any other Federal law, 
     shall be considered to prevent a State, at the full cost to 
     such State, from--
       ``(A) enacting legislation to provide for testing any 
     individual who is a member of a household applying for 
     supplemental nutrition assistance benefits, for the unlawful 
     use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving 
     such benefits; and
       ``(B) finding an individual ineligible to participate in 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program on the basis of 
     the positive result of the testing conducted by the State 
     under such legislation.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, term `controlled 
     substance' has the meaning given such term in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act ((21 U.S.C. 802).''.

     SEC. 137. ELIGIBILITY DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTAIN CONVICTED 
                   FELONS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by sections 109 and 135, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Disqualification for Certain Convicted Felons.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual shall not be eligible for 
     benefits under this Act if the individual is convicted of--
       ``(A) aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 
     18, United States Code;
       ``(B) murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States 
     Code;
       ``(C) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       ``(D) a Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, 
     as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 
     1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)); or
       ``(E) an offense under State law determined by the Attorney 
     General to be substantially similar to an offense described 
     in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
       ``(2) Effects on assistance and benefits for others.--The 
     amount of benefits otherwise required to be provided to an 
     eligible household under this Act shall be determined by 
     considering the individual to whom paragraph (1) applies not 
     to be a member of such household, except that the income and 
     resources of the individual shall be considered to be income 
     and resources of the household.
       ``(3) Enforcement.--Each State shall require each 
     individual applying for benefits under this Act, during the 
     application process, to state, in writing, whether the 
     individual, or any member of the household of the individual, 
     has been convicted of a crime described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(a) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)), as amended by 
     section 109, is amended in the 2d sentence by striking ``and 
     (r)'' and inserting ``, (r), and (t)''.
       (c) Inapplicability to Convictions Occurring on or Before 
     Enactment.--The amendments made by this section shall not 
     apply to a conviction if the conviction is for conduct 
     occurring on or before the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 138. EXPUNGEMENT OF UNUSED SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS.

       Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2020), as amended by section 115, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(w) Expungement of Unused Benefits.--The State agency 
     shall expunge from the EBT account of a household benefits 
     that are not used before the expiration of the 60-day period 
     beginning on the date such benefits are posted to such 
     account.''.

     SEC. 139. PILOT PROJECTS TO PROMOTE WORK AND INCREASE STATE 
                   ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Pilot Projects.--Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026), as amended by sections 122 and 
     123, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Pilot Projects To Promote Work and Increase State 
     Accountability in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out pilot 
     projects to develop and test methods allowing States to run a 
     work program with certain features comparable to the State 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), with the intent of 
     increasing employment and self-sufficiency through increased 
     State accountability and thereby reducing the need for 
     supplemental nutrition assistance benefits.
       ``(2) Agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall enter into cooperative agreements with States 
     in accordance with pilot projects that meet the criteria 
     required under this subsection.
       ``(B) Application.--To be eligible to enter into a 
     cooperative agreement to operate a pilot project under this 
     subsection, a State shall amend its State plan under section 
     11(d) to include a description of its pilot project and 
     explanations of how such project meets the criteria required 
     under this subsection. The Secretary may not disapprove a 
     pilot project which meets the requirements under this 
     subsection.
       ``(C) Assurances.--A State shall include in its plan 
     assurances that its pilot project will--
       ``(i) operate for at least three 12-month periods but not 
     more than five 12-month periods;
       ``(ii) have a robust data collection system for program 
     administration that is designed and shared with project 
     evaluators to ensure proper and timely evaluation; and
       ``(iii) intend to offer a work activity described in 
     paragraph (3) to adults assigned and required to participate 
     under paragraph (4)(A) and who are not exempt under paragraph 
     (4)(B).
       ``(D) Number of pilot projects.--Any State may carry out a 
     pilot project that meets the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(E) Extent of pilot projects.--Pilot projects shall cover 
     no less than the entire State.
       ``(3) Work activity.--(A) For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `work activity' means any of the following:
       ``(i) Employment in the public or private sector that is 
     not subsidized by any public program.
       ``(ii) Employment in the private sector for which the 
     employer receives a subsidy from public funds to offset some 
     or all of the wages and costs of employing an adult.
       ``(iii) Employment in the public sector for which the 
     employer receives a subsidy from public funds to offset some 
     or all of the wages and costs of employing an adult.
       ``(iv) A work activity that--
       ``(I) is performed in return for public benefits;
       ``(II) provides an adult with an opportunity to acquire the 
     general skills, knowledge, and work habits necessary to 
     obtain employment;
       ``(III) is designed to improve the employability of those 
     who cannot find unsubsidized employment; and
       ``(IV) is supervised by an employer, work site sponsor, or 
     other responsible party on an ongoing basis.
       ``(v) Training in the public or private sector that is 
     given to a paid employee while he or she is engaged in 
     productive work and that provides knowledge and skills 
     essential to the full and adequate performance of the job.
       ``(vi) Job search, obtaining employment, or preparation to 
     seek or obtain employment, including--
       ``(I) life skills training;
       ``(II) substance abuse treatment or mental health 
     treatment, determined to be necessary and documented by a 
     qualified medical, substance abuse, or mental health 
     professional; or
       ``(III) rehabilitation activities, supervised by a public 
     agency or other responsible party on an ongoing basis.
       ``(vii) Structured programs and embedded activities--
       ``(I) in which adults perform work for the direct benefit 
     of the community under the auspices of public or nonprofit 
     organizations;
       ``(II) that are limited to projects that serve useful 
     community purposes in fields such as health, social service, 
     environmental protection, education, urban and rural 
     redevelopment, welfare, recreation, public facilities, public 
     safety, and child care;
       ``(III) that are designed to improve the employability of 
     adults not otherwise able to obtain unsubsidized employment; 
     and
       ``(IV) that are supervised on an ongoing basis; and
       ``(V) with respect to which a State agency takes into 
     account, to the extent possible, the prior training, 
     experience, and skills of a recipient in making appropriate 
     community service assignments.
       ``(viii) Career and technical training programs (not to 
     exceed 12 months with respect to any adult) that are directly 
     related to the preparation of adults for employment in 
     current or emerging occupations and that are supervised on an 
     ongoing basis.
       ``(ix) Training or education for job skills that are 
     required by an employer to provide an adult with the ability 
     to obtain employment or to advance or adapt to the changing 
     demands of the workplace and that are supervised on an 
     ongoing basis.
       ``(x) Education that is related to a specific occupation, 
     job, or job offer and that is supervised on an ongoing basis.
       ``(xi) In the case of an adult who has not completed 
     secondary school or received such a certificate of general 
     equivalence, regular attendance--
       ``(I) in accordance with the requirements of the secondary 
     school or course of study, at a

[[Page 13986]]

     secondary school or in a course of study leading to such 
     certificate; and
       ``(II) supervised on an ongoing basis.
       ``(xii) Providing child care to enable another recipient of 
     public benefits to participate in a community service program 
     that--
       ``(I) does not provide compensation for such community 
     service;
       ``(II) is a structured program designed to improve the 
     employability of adults who participate in such program; and
       ``(III) is supervised on an ongoing basis.
       ``(B) Protections.--Work activities under this subsection 
     shall be subject to all applicable health and safety 
     standards. Except as described in clauses (i), (ii), and 
     (iii) of subparagraph (A), the term `work activity' shall be 
     considered work preparation and not defined as employment for 
     purposes of other law.
       ``(4) Pilot projects.--Pilot projects carried out under 
     this subsection shall include interventions to which adults 
     are assigned that are designed to reduce unnecessary 
     dependence, promote self-sufficiency, increase work levels, 
     increase earned income, and reduce supplemental nutrition 
     assistance benefit expenditures among households eligible 
     for, applying for, or participating in the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program.
       ``(A) Adults assigned to interventions by the State shall--
       ``(i) be subject to mandatory participation in work 
     activities specified in paragraph (3);
       ``(ii) participate in work activities specified in 
     paragraph (3) for a minimum of 20 hours per week per 
     household;
       ``(iii) be a maximum age of not less than 50 and not more 
     than 60, as defined by the State;
       ``(iv) be subject to penalties during a period of 
     nonparticipation without good cause ranging from, at State 
     option, a minimum of the removal of the adults from the 
     household benefit amount, up to a maximum of the 
     discontinuance of the entire household benefit amount; and
       ``(v) not be penalized for nonparticipation if child care 
     is not available for 1 or more children under 6 years of age.
       ``(B) The State shall allow certain individuals to be 
     exempt from work requirements--
       ``(i) those participating in work programs under a State 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for an equal or greater 
     number of hours;
       ``(ii) those with 1 or more dependent children under 1 year 
     of age;
       ``(iii) 1 adult family member per household who is needed 
     in the home to care for a disabled family member;
       ``(iv) an adult who is receiving temporary or permanent 
     disability benefits provided by a governmental entity; and
       ``(v) those with a good cause reason for nonparticipation, 
     such as victims of domestic violence, as defined by the 
     State.
       ``(5) Evaluation and reporting.--
       ``(A) Evaluation.--
       ``(i) Independent evaluation.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for each 
     State that enters into a cooperative agreement under 
     paragraph (2) an independent, longitudinal evaluation of its 
     pilot project under this subsection to determine total 
     program savings over the entire course of the pilot project 
     with results reported in consecutive 12-month increments.
       ``(II) Purpose.--The purpose of the evaluation is to 
     measure the impact of interventions provided by the State 
     under the pilot project on the ability of adults in 
     households eligible for, applying for, or participating in 
     the supplemental nutrition assistance program to find and 
     retain employment that leads to increased household income 
     and reduced dependency.
       ``(III) Requirement.--The independent evaluation under 
     subclause (I) shall use valid statistical methods which can 
     determine the difference between supplemental nutrition 
     assistance benefit expenditures, if any, as a result of the 
     interventions as compared to a control group that--

       ``(aa) is not subject to the interventions provided by the 
     State under the pilot project under this subsection; and
       ``(bb) maintains services provided under 16(h) in the year 
     prior to the start of the pilot project under this 
     subsection.

       ``(IV) Option.--States shall have the option to evaluate 
     pilot projects by matched counties or matched geographical 
     areas using a constructed control group design to isolate the 
     effects of the intervention of the pilot project.
       ``(V) Definition.--Constructed control group means there is 
     no random assignment, and instead program participants (those 
     subject to interventions) and non-participants (control 
     described in subclause (III)) are equated using matching or 
     statistical procedures on characteristics that may be 
     associated with program outcomes.

       ``(B) Reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the end of 
     fiscal year 2014 and of each fiscal year thereafter, until 
     the completion of the last evaluation under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, a report 
     that includes a description of--
       ``(i) the status of each pilot project carried out under 
     this subsection;
       ``(ii) the results of the evaluation completed during the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       ``(iii) to the maximum extent practicable--

       ``(I) baseline information relevant to the stated goals and 
     desired outcomes of the pilot project;
       ``(II) the impact of the interventions on appropriate 
     employment, income, and public benefit receipt outcomes among 
     households participating in the pilot project;
       ``(III) equivalent information about similar or identical 
     measures for control groups;
       ``(IV) the planned dissemination of the report findings to 
     State agencies; and
       ``(V) the steps and funding necessary to incorporate into 
     State employment and training programs the components of 
     pilot projects that demonstrate increased employment and 
     earnings.

       ``(C) Public dissemination.--In addition to the reporting 
     requirements under subparagraph (B), evaluation results shall 
     be shared broadly to inform policy makers, service providers, 
     other partners, and the public in order to promote wide use 
     of successful strategies, including by posting evaluation 
     results on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       ``(6) Funding.--
       ``(A) Additional available funds.--From amounts made 
     available under section 18(a)(1), the Secretary shall make 
     available--
       ``(i) up to $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 
     through 2017 for evaluations described in paragraph (5) to 
     carry out this subsection, with such amounts to remain 
     available until expended; and
       ``(ii) amounts equal to one-half of the accumulated 
     supplemental nutrition assistance benefit dollars saved over 
     each consecutive 12-month period according to the evaluation 
     under paragraph (5) for bonus grants to States under 
     paragraph (7)(B).
       ``(B) Administrative expenses.--
       ``(i) Reimbursement.--Except as provided in clause (ii)--

       ``(I) if, in carrying out a pilot project under this 
     subsection during a fiscal year, a State incurs costs that 
     exceed the amount allocated to the State agency under section 
     16(h)(1), the Secretary shall pay such State an amount equal 
     to 50 percent of such costs; and
       ``(II) the Secretary shall also reimburse the State in an 
     amount equal to 50 percent of the total amount of payments 
     made or costs incurred by the State agency in connection with 
     transportation costs and other expenses reasonably necessary 
     and directly related to participation in a pilot project 
     under this subsection, except that the amount of the 
     reimbursement for dependent care expenses shall not exceed an 
     amount equal to the payment made under section 
     6(d)(4)(I)(i)(II) but not more than the applicable local 
     market rate, and such reimbursement shall not be made out of 
     funds allocated under section 16(h)(1).

       ``(ii) Limitation.--For any fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     not pay under clause (i) to a State an amount the exceeds the 
     amount equal to the product of--

       ``(I) the amount of administrative expenses that would be 
     reimbursable for such fiscal year to such State under clause 
     (i) without regard to this clause; and
       ``(II) $277,000,000 (plus the amount carried over, if any, 
     under clause (iii)), divided by the aggregate amount of 
     administrative expenses that would be reimbursable for such 
     fiscal year to all of the States under clause (i) without 
     regard to this clause.

       ``(iii) Carryover.--The amount by which $277,000,000 
     exceeds the aggregate amount paid under clause (i) for a 
     particular fiscal year shall remain available for payments 
     under such clause for any subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(C) Other funds.--Any additional funds required by a 
     State to carry out a pilot project under this subsection may 
     be provided by the State from funds made available to the 
     State for such purpose and in accordance with State and other 
     Federal laws, including the following:
       ``(i) Section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603).
       ``(ii) The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 9201 
     et seq.).
       ``(iii) The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) and section 418 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618).
       ``(iv) The social services block grant under subtitle A of 
     title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.).
       ``(7) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) Specific uses.--Funds provided under this subsection 
     for evaluation of pilot projects under paragraph (6)(A)(i) 
     shall be used only for--
       ``(i) pilot projects that comply with this subsection;
       ``(ii) the costs incurred in gathering and providing 
     information and data used to conduct the independent 
     evaluation under paragraph (5); and
       ``(iii) the costs of the evaluation under paragraph (5).
       ``(B) Limitation.--Funds provided for bonus grants to 
     States for pilot projects under subparagraph (6)(A)(ii) shall 
     be used only for--
       ``(i) pilot projects that comply with this subsection; and

[[Page 13987]]

       ``(ii) any State purpose, not to be restricted to the 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program or its beneficiary 
     population.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 16, as amended by section 121 of this Act--
       (A) in subsection (a) by striking ``subsection (k)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (k) and (h) and section 20''; and
       (B) in subsection (h)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``under sections 
     6(d)(4) and 17(n)'' after ``programs''; and
       (II) by striking subparagraph (E);

       (ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3), and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Exclusion of reimbursement for administrative 
     costs.--No funds may be paid under subsection (a) to a State 
     agency for administrative costs incurred to carry out any of 
     such programs in such fiscal year.'';
       (iii) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``or 17(n)'' after 
     ``section 6(d)(4)''; and
       (iv) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively;
       (2) in section 20 by amending subsection (g) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(g) Exclusion of Reimbursement for Administrative 
     Costs.--No funds may be paid under this section to a State 
     agency for administrative costs incurred to carry out a 
     workfare program operated under this section.''; and
       (3) in section 22(d)(1)(B)(ii) by striking ``, (g), (h)(2), 
     and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``and (g)''.

     SEC. 140. IMPROVED WAGE VERIFICATION USING THE NATIONAL 
                   DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES.

       Effective October 1, 2013, section 11(e) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and after compliance 
     with the requirement specified in paragraph (24)'' after 
     ``section 16(e) of this Act'',
       (2) in paragraph (22) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (3) in paragraph (23) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) that the State agency shall request wage data 
     directly from the National Directory of New Hires established 
     under section 453(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     653(i)) relevant to determining eligibility to receive 
     supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits and 
     determining the correct amount of such benefits.''.

     SEC. 141. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2013) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Feasibility Study for Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) Study.--Subject to the availability of appropriations 
     to carry out this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of a tribal demonstration 
     project for tribes to administer all Federal food assistance 
     programs, services, functions, and activities (or portions 
     thereof) of the agency.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the probable effects on specific programs and program 
     beneficiaries of such a demonstration project;
       ``(B) statutory, regulatory, or other impediments to 
     implementation of such a demonstration project;
       ``(C) strategies for implementing such a demonstration 
     project;
       ``(D) probable costs or savings associated with such a 
     demonstration project;
       ``(E) methods to assure quality and accountability in such 
     a demonstration project; and
       ``(F) such other issues that may be determined by the 
     Secretary or developed through consultation with pursuant to 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the effective 
     date of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives. The report shall contain--
       ``(A) the results of the study under this subsection;
       ``(B) a list of programs, services, functions, and 
     activities (or portions thereof) within each agency with 
     respect to which it would be feasible to include in a tribal 
     demonstration project;
       ``(C) a list of programs, services, functions, and 
     activities (or portions thereof) included in the list 
     provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) that could be included 
     in a tribal demonstration project without amending a statute, 
     or waiving regulations that the Secretary may not waiver; and
       ``(D) a list of legislative actions required in order to 
     include those programs, services, function, and activities 
     (or portions thereof) included in the list provided pursuant 
     to subparagraph (B) but not included in the list provided 
     pursuant to subparagraph (C), in a tribal demonstration 
     project.
       ``(4) Consultation with indian tribes.--The Secretary shall 
     consult with Indian tribes to determine a protocol for 
     consultation under paragraph (1) prior to consultation under 
     such paragraph with the other entities described in such 
     paragraph. The protocol shall require, at a minimum, that--
       ``(A) the government-to-government relationship with Indian 
     tribes forms the basis for the consultation process;
       ``(B) the Indian tribes and the Secretary jointly conduct 
     the consultations required by this subsection; and
       ``(C) the consultation process allows for separate and 
     direct recommendations from the Indian tribes and other 
     entities described in paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $1,000,000.''.

               TITLE II--COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.

       Section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended in 
     the 1st sentence by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.

     SEC. 202. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

       Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 
     1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 93-86) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(B) of subsection (a) by 
     striking ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2016'';
       (2) in the 1st sentence of subsection (d)(2) by striking 
     ``2012'' and inserting ``2016'';
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (m), 
     the States shall only provide assistance under the commodity 
     supplemental food program to low-income individuals aged 60 
     and older.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Phase-Out.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an individual who receives assistance under the 
     commodity supplemental food program on the day before the 
     effective date of this subsection shall continue to receive 
     that assistance until the date on which the individual no 
     longer qualifies for assistance under the eligibility 
     criteria for the program in effect on the day before the 
     effective date of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 203. DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES TO SPECIAL 
                   NUTRITION PROJECTS.

       Section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 
     1981 (7 U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A)) is amended in the 1st sentence by 
     striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2016''.

     SEC. 204. PROCESSING OF COMMODITIES.

       (a) Section 17 of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and 
     WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by--
       (1) striking the heading and inserting ``COMMODITY 
     DONATIONS AND PROCESSING''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Processing.--For any program included in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of State or Federal law relating to the procurement of goods 
     and services--
       ``(1) retain title to commodities delivered to a processor, 
     on behalf of a State (including a State distributing agency 
     and a recipient agency), until such time as end products 
     containing such commodities, or similar commodities as 
     approved by the Secretary, are delivered to a State 
     distributing agency or to a recipient agency; and
       ``(2) promulgate regulations to ensure accountability for 
     commodities provided to a processor for processing into end 
     products, and to facilitate processing of commodities into 
     end products for use by recipient agencies. Such regulations 
     may provide that--
       ``(A) a processor that receives commodities for processing 
     into end products, or provides a service with respect to such 
     commodities or end products, in accordance with its agreement 
     with a State distributing agency or a recipient agency, 
     provide to the Secretary a bond or other means of financial 
     assurance to protect the value of such commodities; and
       ``(B) in the event a processor fails to deliver to a State 
     distributing agency or a recipient agency an end product in 
     conformance with the processing agreement entered into under 
     this Act, the Secretary take action with respect to the bond 
     or other means of financial assurance pursuant to regulations 
     promulgated under this paragraph and distribute any proceeds 
     obtained by the Secretary to one or more State distributing 
     agencies and recipient agencies as determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 18 of the Commodity Distribution 
     Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) The term `commodities' means agricultural commodities 
     and their products that are donated by the Secretary for use 
     by recipient agencies.
       ``(2) The term `end product' means a food product that 
     contains processed commodities.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 3 of the 
     Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC Amendments of 1987 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-237) is amended--

[[Page 13988]]

       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) the program established under section 4(b) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(D) by striking ``the Committee on 
     Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``section 32 of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)'' and 
     inserting ``section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c)'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii) by striking subclause (II) 
     and inserting the following:

       ``(II) the program established under section 4(b) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));''; and

       (4) in subsection (k) by striking ``the Committee on 
     Education and Labor'' and inserting ``the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce''.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       Section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3007) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``SENIORS'';
       (2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture shall use to carry 
     out and expand the farmers market nutrition program 
     $20,600,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2016.
       ``(2) Additional funding.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     subsection for each of the fiscal years specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the funds 
     made available to carry out this section in any fiscal year 
     shall be used to provide assistance to seniors.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``seniors''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, and low-income 
     families who are determined to be at nutritional risk'' after 
     ``low-income seniors'';
       (4) in subsection (c) by striking ``seniors'';
       (5) in subsection (d) by striking ``seniors'';
       (6) in subsection (e) by striking ``seniors'';
       (7) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (8) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) State Grants and Other Assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out the Program through grants and other 
     assistance provided in accordance with agreements made with 
     States, for implementation through State agencies and local 
     agencies, that include provisions--
       ``(1) for the issuance of coupons or vouchers to 
     participating individuals;
       ``(2) establishing an appropriate annual percentage 
     limitation on the use of funds for administrative costs; and
       ``(3) specifying other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary deems appropriate to encourage expanding the 
     participation of small scale farmers in Federal nutrition 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 302. NUTRITION INFORMATION AND AWARENESS PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 4403 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3171 note; Public Law 107-171) is repealed.

     SEC. 303. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM.

       Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``FRESH'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``fresh'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``fresh''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``fresh''.

     SEC. 304. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASE OF FRESH FRUITS, 
                   VEGETABLES, AND OTHER SPECIALTY FOOD CROPS.

       Section 10603 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 612c-4) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2016'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Pilot Grant Program for Purchase of Fresh Fruits and 
     Vegetables.--
       ``(1) In general.--Using amounts made available to carry 
     out subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     conduct a pilot program under which the Secretary will give 
     not more than five participating States the option of 
     receiving a grant in an amount equal to the value of the 
     commodities that the participating State would otherwise 
     receive under this section for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2016.
       ``(2) Use of grant funds.--A participating State receiving 
     a grant under this subsection may use the grant funds solely 
     to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables for distribution to 
     schools and service institutions in the State that 
     participate in the food service programs under the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) 
     and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.).
       ``(3) Selection of participating states.--The Secretary 
     shall select participating States from applications submitted 
     by the States.
       ``(4) Reporting requirements.--
       ``(A) School and service institution requirement.--Schools 
     and service institutions in a participating State shall keep 
     records of purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables made 
     using the grant funds and report such records to the State.
       ``(B) State requirement.--Each participating State shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the success of the pilot 
     program in the State, including information on--
       ``(i) the amount and value of each type of fresh fruit and 
     vegetable purchased by the State; and
       ``(ii) the benefit provided by such purchases in conducting 
     the school food service in the State, including meeting 
     school meal requirements.''.

     SEC. 305. ENCOURAGING LOCALLY AND REGIONALLY GROWN AND RAISED 
                   FOOD.

       (a) Commodity Purchase Streamlining.--The Secretary may 
     permit each school food authority with a low annual commodity 
     entitlement value, as determined by the Secretary, to elect 
     to substitute locally and regionally grown and raised food 
     for the authority's allotment, in whole or in part, of 
     commodity assistance for the school meal programs under the 
     Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 
     et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 
     et seq.), if--
       (1) the election is requested by the school food authority;
       (2) the Secretary determines that the election will reduce 
     State and Federal administrative costs; and
       (3) the election will provide the school food authority 
     with greater flexibility to purchase locally and regionally 
     grown and raised foods.
       (b) Farm-to-School Demonstration Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may establish farm-to-school 
     demonstration programs under which school food authorities, 
     agricultural producers producing for local and regional 
     markets, and other farm-to-school stakeholders will 
     collaborate with the Agriculture Marketing Service to, on a 
     cost neutral basis, source food for the school meal programs 
     under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) from local farmers and ranchers in lieu 
     of the commodity assistance provided to the school food 
     authorities for the school meal programs.
       (2) Requirements.--
       (A) In general.--Each demonstration program carried out 
     under this subsection shall--
       (i) facilitate and increase the purchase of unprocessed and 
     minimally processed locally and regionally grown and raised 
     agricultural products to be served under the school meal 
     programs;
       (ii) test methods to improve procurement, transportation, 
     and meal preparation processes for the school meal programs;
       (iii) assess whether administrative costs can be saved 
     through increased school food authority flexibility to source 
     locally and regionally produced foods for the school meal 
     programs; and
       (iv) undertake rigorous evaluation and share information 
     about results of the demonstration program, including cost 
     savings, with the Secretary, other school food authorities, 
     agricultural producers producing for the local and regional 
     market, and the general public.
       (B) Plans.--In order to be selected to carry out a 
     demonstration program under this subsection, a school food 
     authority shall submit to the Secretary a plan at such time 
     and in such manner as the Secretary may require, and 
     containing information with respect to the requirements 
     described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A).
       (3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance to demonstration program participants to 
     assist such participants to acquire bids from potential 
     vendors in a timely and cost-effective manner.
       (4) Length.--The Secretary shall determine the appropriate 
     length of time for each demonstration program under this 
     subsection.
       (5) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate among 
     relevant agencies of the Department of Agriculture and non-
     governmental organizations with appropriate expertise to 
     facilitate the provision of training and technical assistance 
     necessary to successfully carry out demonstration programs 
     under this subsection.
       (6) Number.--Subject to the availability of funds to carry 
     out this subsection, the Secretary shall select at least 10 
     demonstration programs to be carried out under this 
     subsection.

[[Page 13989]]

       (7) Diversity and balance.--In selecting demonstration 
     programs to be carried out under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure--
       (A) geographical diversity;
       (B) that at least half of the demonstration programs are 
     completed in collaboration with school food authorities with 
     small annual commodity entitlements, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (C) that at least half of the demonstration programs are 
     completed in rural or tribal communities;
       (D) equitable treatment of school food authorities with a 
     high percentage of students eligible for free or reduced 
     price lunches, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (E) that at least one of the demonstration programs is 
     completed on a military installation as defined in section 
     2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 306. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF WHITE POTATOES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a review of the economic and 
     public health benefits of white potatoes on low-income 
     families who are determined to be at nutritional risk. Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review 
     to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate.

     SEC. 307. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6951 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 242. HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to enhance 
     the authorities of the Secretary to support efforts to 
     provide access to healthy food by establishing an initiative 
     to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to 
     create and preserve quality jobs, and to revitalize low-
     income communities by providing loans and grants to eligible 
     fresh, healthy food retailers to overcome the higher costs 
     and initial barriers to entry in underserved areas.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Community development financial institution.--The 
     term `community development financial institution' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 103 of the Community 
     Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 
     (12 U.S.C. 4702).
       ``(2) Initiative.--The term `Initiative' means the Healthy 
     Food Financing Initiative established under subsection 
     (c)(1).
       ``(3) National fund manager.--The term `national fund 
     manager' means a community development financial institution 
     that is--
       ``(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     section; and
       ``(B) certified by the Community Development Financial 
     Institution Fund of the Department of Treasury to manage the 
     Initiative for purposes of--
       ``(i) raising private capital;
       ``(ii) providing financial and technical assistance to 
     partnerships; and
       ``(iii) funding eligible projects to attract fresh, healthy 
     food retailers to underserved areas, in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(4) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means a 
     regional, State, or local public-private partnership that--
       ``(A) is organized to improve access to fresh, healthy 
     foods;
       ``(B) provides financial and technical assistance to 
     eligible projects; and
       ``(C) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may 
     establish.
       ``(5) Perishable food.--The term `perishable food' means a 
     staple food that is fresh, refrigerated, or frozen.
       ``(6) Quality job.--The term `quality job' means a job that 
     provides wages and other benefits comparable to, or better 
     than, similar positions in existing businesses of similar 
     size in similar local economies.
       ``(7) Staple food.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `staple food' means food that 
     is a basic dietary item.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `staple food' includes--
       ``(i) bread;
       ``(ii) flour;
       ``(iii) fruits;
       ``(iv) vegetables; and
       ``(v) meat.
       ``(c) Initiative.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     initiative to achieve the purpose described in subsection (a) 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the 
     Secretary shall provide funding to entities with eligible 
     projects, as described in subparagraph (B), subject to the 
     priorities described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Use of funds.--Funds provided to an entity pursuant 
     to clause (i) shall be used--

       ``(I) to create revolving loan pools of capital or other 
     products to provide loans to finance eligible projects or 
     partnerships;
       ``(II) to provide grants for eligible projects or 
     partnerships;
       ``(III) to provide technical assistance to funded projects 
     and entities seeking Initiative funding; and
       ``(IV) to cover administrative expenses of the national 
     fund manager in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the 
     Federal funds provided.

       ``(B) Eligible projects.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary, the national fund manager shall establish 
     eligibility criteria for projects under the Initiative, which 
     shall include the existence or planned execution of 
     agreements--
       ``(i) to expand or preserve the availability of staple 
     foods in underserved areas with moderate- and low-income 
     populations by maintaining or increasing the number of retail 
     outlets that offer an assortment of perishable food and 
     staple food items, as determined by the Secretary, in those 
     areas; and
       ``(ii) to accept benefits under the supplemental nutrition 
     assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(C) Priorities.--In carrying out the Initiative, priority 
     shall be given to projects that--
       ``(i) are located in severely distressed low-income 
     communities, as defined by the Community Development 
     Financial Institutions Fund of the Department of Treasury; 
     and
       ``(ii) include 1 or more of the following characteristics:

       ``(I) The project will create or retain quality jobs for 
     low-income residents in the community.
       ``(II) The project supports regional food systems and 
     locally grown foods, to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(III) In areas served by public transit, the project is 
     accessible by public transit.
       ``(IV) The project involves women- or minority-owned 
     businesses.
       ``(V) The project receives funding from other sources, 
     including other Federal agencies.
       ``(VI) The project otherwise advances the purpose of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary.

       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $125,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 296(b) of the Department 
     of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 7014(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) the authority of the Secretary to establish and carry 
     out the Health Food Financing Initiative under section 
     242.''.

     SEC. 308. REVIEW OF SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS IN FEDERAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

       The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of sole-source 
     contracts in Federal nutrition programs, and the effect such 
     contracts have on program participation, program goals, 
     nonprogram consumers, retailers, and free market dynamics. 
     Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall report the findings of this review 
     to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate.

     SEC. 309. PURCHASE OF HALAL AND KOSHER FOOD FOR EMERGENCY 
                   FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7502) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Kosher and Halal Food.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     finalize and implement a plan--
       ``(1) to increase the purchase of Kosher and Halal food 
     from food manufacturers with a Kosher or Halal certification 
     to carry out the program established under this Act if the 
     Kosher and Halal food purchased is cost neutral as compared 
     to food that is not from food manufacturers with a Kosher or 
     Halal certification; and
       ``(2) to modify the labeling of the commodities list used 
     to carry out the program in a manner that enables Kosher and 
     Halal food bank operators to identify which commodities to 
     obtain from local food banks.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition 
Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.
  As we all know, in July, the House passed a farm bill--farm bill 
only. This legislation did not include title IV, which consists of the 
nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP.
  Since that time, our Leader Cantor has put together a working group, 
of which I was a part, to create a bill that better targets Federal 
nutrition programs to serve those in need of assistance. H.R. 3102 is 
the by-product of that effort.

[[Page 13990]]

  Before I begin to highlight some of its provisions, let me take a 
moment to say what we all know to be true. There's no denying that SNAP 
provides important support for many Americans who are struggling. It 
serves a noble purpose: to help you when you hit bottom. But it's not 
meant to keep you at the bottom, and that's why it's important we 
ensure the integrity of the program, so that it's working in the most 
effective and efficient way, that it works to get you back up on your 
feet.

                              {time}  1600

  Let me highlight some of the provisions that make this possible.
  First, it incorporates all of the savings and reforms that were in 
H.R. 1947 that was favorably reported by the House Agriculture 
Committee in a large bipartisan vote. H.R. 1947 saved more than $20 
billion by eliminating categorical eligibility to ensure that States 
are enforcing the asset and income test in SNAP law. It closed the 
heat-and-eat loophole to prevent States from sending out $1 LIHEAP 
checks to SNAP recipients to artificially increase their benefit 
levels.
  It ended the practice of giving States bonuses for responsibly 
administering SNAP, which is their duty. It tightened restrictions to 
prevent lottery winners and traditional college students from 
participating in the program. And it restricted the Department of 
Agriculture from advertising SNAP on radio and television shows, such 
as soap operas. The bill we are considering today also incorporates 
many reforms that were adopted on the floor when the House considered 
H.R. 1947 in June.
  And, finally, the efforts of the working group. This bill includes 
additional reforms that eliminate a State's ability to waive the 
current work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. It 
encourages employment and training by providing cost-share funds to 
States that adopt provisions under a new work pilot program. And it 
increases funding for food banks, which have been successful in 
effectively utilizing government dollars and securing private-sector 
donations in order to feed hungry Americans.
  Ultimately, this bill encourages and enables work participation and 
makes commonsense reforms, closes program loopholes and eliminates 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program, saving the American 
taxpayer nearly $40 billion.
  I will admit to you this has been an unusual process. But it remains 
my goal to get a 5-year farm bill enacted. I'm doing everything 
possible to make sure that that happens this year. This is a step 
toward that goal. It is my hope that we'll pass this bill so the farm 
bill process will continue. We have a responsibility to get this done. 
Quite simply, it shouldn't be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all 
of us in this economy have enough to eat. And that's what a farm bill 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill 
so the process can continue.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I ask my colleagues in this House, Why are we here today? The 
original farm bill, H.R. 1947, passed out of the Agriculture Committee 
with bipartisan support. While this bill eventually died when it came 
to the floor, I have to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
their leadership and desire to work together for the common good of all 
of the American people.
  Today's exercise is nothing more than a waste of our time and an 
insult to every American in need. The Cantor bill includes the same 
toxic amendments that derailed the farm bill's passage the first time 
around. The fact that we are considering this legislation makes me 
question whether the Republican leadership even wants a farm bill to 
pass.
  The Cantor bill guts nutrition for those most in need and says to the 
poor, to hungry children, to the disabled, seniors and our veterans, 
You don't matter. You are not worthy of our help.
  They deserve better.
  I've heard the stories from my constituents who struggle every month 
on whether to pay for medicine or food because they cannot afford both. 
SNAP recipients will already see a reduction in their benefits 
beginning November 1 when the 2009 Recovery Act temporary benefit boost 
ends. It will be reduced by as much as $300 per year for some people. 
That is a staggering amount.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at SNAP 
purely from a dollars-and-cents standpoint. Earlier this year, I 
participated in a panel on poverty. One of the young ladies from 
Witnesses to Hunger said:

       People do a lot of talking about us. They refer to SNAP 
     beneficiaries as statistics. But I'm not a statistic, I'm a 
     real person struggling to get by.

  This bill would abandon 5.7 million people during a time when they 
need us the most. No one can justify a bill of $40 billion in cuts when 
47 percent of all SNAP recipients are children under the age of 18. I 
cannot justify such cuts when 16.5 percent of all SNAP households 
include seniors. This bill is more than a sucker punch to those in 
need. It may be their fatal blow.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 
to discuss the issue of our veterans as it relates to H.R. 3102. I 
commend you for working to include important reforms of the SNAP 
program in this bill. However, some concerns have been raised regarding 
the bill's impact on veterans who rely on SNAP benefits.
  While the eligibility and work requirement reforms included in this 
legislation are important, I believe they will have unintended 
consequences on our veterans. Some of our veterans returning from Iraq 
and Afghanistan live in a world that is somewhere between battle 
fatigue and PTSD. That means they may need a little extra time to 
transition from service to employment than their fellow citizens. And, 
unfortunately, veterans have been hit hard during the recession. They 
are unemployed at higher rates than the rest of the country. In 
Michigan alone, there are 25,000 unemployed veterans staring down at a 
north of 9 percent unemployment rate.
  I ask the chairman if he would commit to work with me in conference 
to include language ensuring veterans remain protected in the future 
the way they are protected today. While this would not impact a large 
number of soldiers, sailors, and marines, it would have a huge impact 
on the confidence our servicemembers have in their government to keep 
our promise to them. And that promise is that when you put your life on 
the line for the United States of America, you will have the support, 
especially in these difficult economic times, of the people of the 
United States.
  Our Nation's veterans have sacrificed for this country, and it is 
especially important that in difficult times they have this support.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from 
Michigan knows because he's been a leader in this area, this Congress 
is committed to ensuring that our Nation's veterans have the support 
they need to enter successful civilian careers after their military 
service. This House led by passing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, a 
comprehensive jobs bill to reduce veteran unemployment by retraining 
veterans to make them more competitive in today's job market. I'm 
pleased that the Senate followed our lead and that the VOW Act is now 
law.
  This bill does not target veterans, though I understand the concerns 
you have raised today. So long as a veteran meets the asset and income 
test currently in SNAP law and complies with the applicable work 
requirement, he or she will continue to receive nutrition benefits. As 
with all disabled adults, veterans who have a physical or mental 
disability are exempt from work requirements. There are also numerous 
Federal job training and education programs specifically targeting 
veterans that spend over $10 billion a year to ensure our veterans can 
get back to

[[Page 13991]]

work. Additionally, we currently provide up to 73 weeks of unemployment 
benefits for veterans in our highest unemployment States.
  Even so, I know I speak for the entire Agriculture Committee when I 
say we are committed to protecting our veterans in a way that honors 
their service and sacrifice to our Nation, and I look forward to 
working with the gentleman to make sure that the final conference 
committee agreement does just that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
  Today, the House of Representatives has the opportunity to pass a 
bill that makes the greatest reforms to SNAP since the bipartisan 1996 
welfare reform act, and results in less spending. Opposing this bill is 
a vote for the status quo in Washington.
  Our goal throughout this process has not been to take millions of 
people off of food stamps but to restore the integrity of the program 
and ensure this safety net is preserved for the families most in need. 
The arguments you will hear from the other side of the aisle are just 
theatrics. If you listen to them out of context, you would assume that 
we're destroying or eliminating the entire SNAP program. But we are not 
talking about eliminating the SNAP program. We're committed to finding 
solutions that work with the resources we actually have.
  Today, we have an opportunity to modernize the nutrition program, to 
close loopholes, and most importantly, keep the safety net intact for 
qualified American families who depend on this assistance every day.
  This bill rids nutrition policy of provisions that have weakened the 
system. It will seek to limit the public assistance program to those 
who qualify and close the loopholes that have been used to game the 
system. It will also create a more efficient and effective program for 
the Americans who really need it. This bill gives people the tools to 
become self-sufficient, find work, and make a better life for 
themselves and their children.
  The Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act is a good bill that 
reforms nutrition policy and returns accountability to the food stamp 
program. And yes, Madam Speaker, it does reduce spending.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and support this good work.
  Ms. FUDGE. Let me just say that I find it's not theatrics that 5,000 
Active Duty families would be kicked off of food stamps if this bill 
passes as it is given to us today.
  Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our assistant Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3102, the latest 
attempt by the Republican majority to add more insults to the injuries 
that have been inflicted upon many working families, making their lives 
much more difficult.
  It's become clear to me that some of my colleagues on the other side 
either don't believe or don't care that their preferred policies would 
make the poor poorer and the hungry hungrier. They seem unmoved by the 
arguments of many, including former Senate majority leader and 
Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, that this bill would make it 
more difficult for millions of Americans to feed themselves and their 
families.
  For the last half century, the farm bill has always included both 
agriculture subsidies and nutrition assistance. This combination makes 
a lot of sense. Every time the EBT card is swiped, farmers--large and 
small--grocers--national chains to local mom-and-pop stores, and 
banks--Wall Street and Main Street--all benefit. For American farmers 
and agribusiness industry to succeed, they need consumers to purchase 
the food that they produce.
  With the comprehensive nature of past farm bills, it is no surprise 
that 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, energy, 
and crop insurance groups oppose the Republican leadership's cynical 
ploy to separate nutrition assistance from the rest of the farm bill.
  We talk about how SNAP's benefits go to individuals, but if the truth 
be told, the real beneficiaries are local communities and enterprises. 
My Republican colleagues claim to be big supporters of small 
businesses. But you can't support small businesses if you don't support 
their customers. This ill-advised legislation would also hurt 
businesses that have nothing to do with food.
  In my district, the average household income among SNAP recipients is 
less than $25,000 a year. If these low-income people lose access to 
nutrition assistance, money they would otherwise spend on other needs 
would be spent instead on food, taking customers away from other 
businesses throughout our economy.
  Out-of-a-job supermarket workers will also have less money to spend. 
Less demand means fewer jobs. An analysis by the Department of 
Agriculture of similar SNAP cuts last year found that more than 50,000 
jobs would be affected. SNAP funding is crucial to our economy because 
those dollars go directly into the local economy.
  My Republican colleagues and I might differ on how to grow the 
economy, but at the very least, we should be able to agree that we 
can't grow the economy by shrinking it.
  Madam Speaker, I recognize that there are legitimate philosophical 
differences between the two parties on the role of the federal 
government.
  But if you disagree with me about the moral consequences of this 
legislation, I hope you will pause to consider its harmful economic 
consequences and vote down this bill.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3102, the 
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This legislation takes a 
significant step in reforming the food stamp program by preserving 
benefits for Americans truly in need of help, while holding accountable 
those who are capable of helping themselves.
  Throughout the Obama Presidency, we have seen the food stamp program 
grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye 
to a system fraught with abuse. This legislation will no longer allow 
States to exploit various loopholes, such as artificially making people 
eligible simply by mailing a TANF brochure, or substantially increasing 
benefits by sending a nominal LIHEAP check.
  This legislation also no longer allows States to waive work 
requirements that were put in place in the 1996 welfare reform law. As 
another Arkansan, President Bill Clinton, said when he signed the 
reform bill into law, we are making ``welfare what it was meant to be, 
a second chance, not a way of life.''
  The reforms in this bill will give people a second chance by ensuring 
food stamps will be there when people fall on hard times, but promoting 
self-sufficiency through employment training programs so able-bodied 
Americans can get back to work.
  Madam Speaker, this bill preserves and protects the food stamp 
program for the most vulnerable Americans by putting an end to 
institutional abuses that threaten its future viability. We can't 
expect to continue to provide assistance to the poor if we allow abuse 
to bankrupt the food stamp system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may 
restore integrity to the program and continue to provide for those in 
need.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, let me just say that the First District of 
Arkansas, which my colleague represents, has a SNAP recipient 
percentage of 18.2 percent.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), one of my fellow subcommittee 
ranking members on the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, on Monday I visited a food bank in my 
district to discuss the importance of

[[Page 13992]]

healthy food for healthy families. It is clear from their example, 
among many, that a healthy mind and a healthy body means a healthy 
workforce and a more productive economy.
  In May, the Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan farm bill with 
reforms to nutrition that would have saved almost $40 billion. That 
bill was defeated, and now we're considering a bill with serious 
ramifications that have proposed cuts that are not bipartisan and that 
go way too far. They will take away food from children, seniors, 
veterans, and military families.
  Our children are our future, and ensuring their access to healthy 
meals at school and at home is critical. The Greatest Generation paved 
our path to prosperity. How dare we not honor our seniors and we take 
food from them on their tables.
  Third, those who serve in our military, we should keep our promises 
and make sure that they and their families and our veterans do not go 
hungry. As one who has worked with both sides of the aisle, I implore 
my colleagues to oppose this bill. Work together. Find a bipartisan, 
commonsense solution that stays true to our Nation's commitments to our 
children, our seniors, our veterans, and our military families. For I 
was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3102.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King), the primary subcommittee chairman on this important 
issue.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I 
rise in support of H.R. 3102.
  Madam Speaker, I'd like to explain my position with this bit of a 
narrative. When I came into this Congress a little over a decade ago, I 
was watching the growth in the nutrition program, the food stamp 
program--and I'm well aware that it was established to try to put an 
end to malnutrition in America. Now, it was growing too fast for me at 
that time. At that time there were 19 million Americans that were on 
the food stamp program. By 2008, there were then 28.2 million Americans 
on the program. The cost in 2003 was about $25 billion. The cost in 
2008 was $37.6 billion. Today, our number is knocking on the door of 47 
million people. From 19 million to 47 million people, from $25 billion 
to $78.4 billion, and we're watching an administration that has been 
advancing the expansion of the signup of the nutrition program by 
spending millions of dollars in advertising to get more people to sign 
up, and hiring people to go out and recruit people to sign up for more 
food stamps.
  I listened to the testimony before the committee that we had from La 
Raza that said that food insecurity is now a reason for obesity in 
America; that people have insecurity about where some of their future 
meals might come from. Therefore, they tend to overeat when they do get 
food. And we can help solve this obesity problem by giving an unlimited 
supply of food stamps, the EBT benefits, to people. Then we will 
somehow get thinner.
  This thing has been turned completely around on its head from a 
problem of malnutrition to a problem of obesity--all tried by Democrats 
to solve with the same solution, which is more and more spending into a 
program.
  There won't be needy people that are taken off this. There isn't 
going to be food coming out of the mouths of babes. This is 
categorical. This is so that the resources are available to the people 
that need it, those that are truly hungry.
  By the way, this remark that it is a cynical ploy I completely 
disagree with. This is a sincere effort to manage our budget.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the ranking member on 
the subcommittee that oversees SNAP--who has not called one meeting all 
year--that he has 10 percent SNAP recipients in his district.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa), another of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the 
Agriculture Committee and a member of the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus,
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
irresponsible nutrition bill.
  Should these cuts take effect, hundreds and thousands of Californians 
in need will lose access to a very important lifeline. This would 
include one of my constituents, Pazong Moua, a mother of two who works 
33 hours a week and goes to school part time in hopes of becoming a 
teacher to get out of this network, this lifeline that she is presently 
in.
  For her, the working poor--and in many cases some of the most 
vulnerable veterans across our country--SNAP is a hand ``up,'' not a 
hand ``out.'' It is a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle.
  As we emerge from the Great Recession, now is not the time to play 
politics with hunger. With our rich agricultural heritage, we are also 
a Nation that has a duty to fight hunger here at home.
  Former President Reagan maybe said it best:

       As long as there is one person in this country who is 
     hungry, that is one person too many.

  Let's do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this bill and fix it.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Nutrition Reform and 
Work Opportunity Act.
  The unfortunate reality is that one in seven people in this country 
is on food stamps. Spending on the program has doubled since 2008, and 
the number of Americans on SNAP has doubled since 2003.
  Just as I believe that we must take care of fellow Americans who 
truly need the help, I also believe that we must address fraud and 
abuse in the SNAP program and provide opportunities and encouragement 
to put people back to work.
  When unemployment declines, the number of food stamp recipients still 
increases under our current system. This is simply unsustainable.
  It's time for some real change. This bill enforces the work 
requirements of able-bodied adults without dependents, similar to the 
reforms in Bill Clinton's 1996 bipartisan welfare reform bill. It 
eliminates taxpayer-funded advocacy campaigns, closes the ``heat and 
eat'' loophole, eliminates categorical eligibility to ensure program 
integrity, and ends State bonuses for administering the program.
  I also support the work and job-training requirements in this bill. 
These programs offer real work skills. Investing in these skills will 
make individuals more marketable in the workplace. I have introduced a 
bill on the same topic. It's called the Opportunity Knocks Act. It's 
going to encourage Americans to take job-training courses while still 
being able to keep their unemployment benefits. These types of 
initiatives put Americans back to work.
  The most important step we can take to help those 47 million 
Americans on SNAP is to grow our economy and promote opportunities to 
put our family, friends, and neighbors back to work.
  The farm bill is a jobs bill. Let's move the process forward and 
support these reforms so that the taxpayers' dollars are spent much 
more wisely.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. Job training is 
great, but there is nothing in this bill that ensures any money will go 
towards job training.
  I also want to say that in Mr. Davis' district, 12.8 percent of his 
residents are on SNAP.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. DelBene), one of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.

[[Page 13993]]


  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, we're debating an extreme bill with no 
chance of becoming law, when we could be weeks into conferencing a farm 
bill.
  SNAP has prevented millions from falling into poverty. In the western 
part of Washington State, 690,000 people are still experiencing hunger, 
and we should not be arbitrarily cutting off aid.
  This bill would force States to cut off people struggling to find a 
job, also stripping them of transportation and childcare assistance. If 
States don't comply, they lose funds for the SNAP employment and 
training programs like the model program we have in Washington State 
that has led many to self-sufficiency. Even at the height of the 
recession, 60 percent in Washington's programs found employment and 
more than half were off assistance 2 years after the program.
  House leadership says this bill will lead to more people working. But 
how does cutting programs proven to help people find jobs accomplish 
this? All this bill does is cut the lifeline for 3.8 million hungry 
American families, children, veterans, and seniors. This is not a 
serious proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), 
and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. COFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with 
Chairman Lucas.
  Colorado has been a leader in training programs. And I want to 
ensure, when passing this Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
reform bill, that the formulas for States to receive Federal funds for 
operating training programs are done in a way that encourages States to 
be active in helping individuals become self-sufficient.
  To clarify, I would like to work with the chairman to make sure 
Federal dollars are available to States like Colorado that actively 
move people to self-sufficiency.
  Mr. LUCAS. Reclaiming my time, I am aware of the leadership of 
Colorado in this area. I look forward to working with the gentleman 
from Colorado as we move forward with this legislation to ensure that 
Federal dollars are available to States that actively move people to 
self-sufficiency.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, yes, Colorado has been a leader, but the 
bill specifically gives States the ability to spend savings any way 
they choose.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Negrete McLeod), another one of my colleagues on the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the proposed 
cuts offered by H.R. 3102.
  As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am greatly concerned that 
this is a $39 billion cut to our Nation's most powerful antipoverty 
tool--a tool because each month SNAP helps feed 3.4 million households 
with elderly individuals.
  In 2011, 4.8 million Americans over the age of 60 lacked access to 
food. Some seniors are already making the decision between food and 
their medicine. Cuts to SNAP will only intensify the problem, setting 
seniors into deeper destitution and hunger. I ask the bill's 
supporters: How will these Americans eat without the means to afford 
food?
  I urge my colleagues to remember the most vulnerable constituents in 
their States and to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I don't question the sincerity of our 
Democrat colleagues' desire to feed the truly needy; I share in that 
commitment. But, Madam Speaker, I do resent the idea that somehow 
asking able-bodied adults without dependent children to at least be 
looking for work as a requirement to receive these benefits is somehow 
immoral.
  When did America trade the dignity of a job for a culture of 
permanent dependency? President Theodore Roosevelt writes in his 
autobiography about his life as a North Dakota rancher. In chapter 
four, ``In Cowboy Land,'' he writes:

       We knew toil and hardship, hunger and thirst, but we felt 
     the beat of hardy life in our veins because ours was the 
     glory of work and the joy of living.

                              {time}  1630

  Madam Speaker, I say let's encourage the dignity of work again and 
pass these modest reforms.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my friend that able-
bodied work has always been in the farm bill. What has changed by this 
bill is that it takes away the opportunities for Governors to request a 
waiver when their unemployment rate is very high.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Lujan Grisham), another member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I thank my colleague from 
Ohio.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this disastrous bill that cuts 
$40 billion from SNAP, a vital program that feeds over 442,000 New 
Mexicans, half of whom are children.
  I want to share the story of LaNae Havens, which shows just how much 
SNAP means to the people in my district.
  LaNae is a single mother with a handsome 9-year-old son named Konnor. 
She works full time, but she doesn't make a lot of money. She has to 
pay for childcare, rent, transportation to work, utility costs, and all 
the other expenses families face. That doesn't leave much money for 
food--and certainly not for the healthy, nutritious food that growing 
children need.
  Konnor suffers from anemia. Without her $33 a week in food 
assistance, LaNae says there's no way she is able to feed her son the 
protein- and iron-rich foods he desperately needs. She is terrified of 
what happens if she loses SNAP.
  I did the SNAP challenge, and it's just enough to get by. You can't 
buy fresh vegetables. You can't buy enough protein. The thought that we 
would make it even less for those Americans who need it is 
unconscionable. I don't want Konnor to go hungry.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Southerland), who's worked very diligently on this bill.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I would like to thank and commend you, Mr. Chairman, 
on your great work.
  Madam Speaker, there's been a lot of things talked about today and in 
the past about the motivation. I've been very involved in this bill. 
The ranking member, she and I have gotten to know each other, and it 
has been a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. I want you to know, Madam 
Speaker, that my motivation has only been to introduce the blessing of 
work to able-bodied people.
  Madam Speaker, from your chair, if you look down the center aisle, 
you can see one of 23 faces that are at the top of this room. The face 
you are looking at is the face of Moses. That is the only face that is 
a full frontal view and not a side view like the other 22 faces that 
surround this room. It was his work, the work of Moses, that in the 
very first chapter of Genesis, God created Adam and placed him in the 
garden to work it.
  Work is not a penalty; work is a blessing. God's very first work was 
to introduce the responsibility of an able-bodied individual to do not 
just a physical activity, not just an economic activity, but, in every 
sense of the word, a spiritual activity.
  What we have done in this country is wrong. We have failed in 
introducing the blessing of work to able-bodied people who have the 
ability, who are mentally, physically, psychologically able to work, 
and we have robbed them of knowing a better life that they helped 
create for themselves and their families.
  I want to be very clear. This bill excludes children. It excludes the 
disabled. It excludes seniors. It makes sure that able-bodied 
individuals who are mentally, physically, and psychologically able to 
work know the blessing that God intended.

[[Page 13994]]

  There's been a lot of talk about Scripture and a lot of talk about 
God's plan. I want people to know that it was Moses--Moses--who in this 
very room is placed in a position of prominence. It was his very first 
chapter that he gave us God's plan for able-bodied.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I do consider Mr. Southerland a friend, but 
I would just say that we cannot pick and choose what we take out of the 
Bible. The Bible mentions the words ``poor'' and ``hungry'' more than 
200 times.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire 
(Ms. Kuster), another member of the Agriculture Committee.
  Ms. KUSTER. Madam Speaker, I want to address my remarks to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I, too, believe in 
work. But in the northern part of my district, we have veterans who are 
unable to find work.
  I recently visited the Bridge House in the rural north country of New 
Hampshire which provides for the homeless, many of them veterans. It is 
already hard for folks to find a job, especially for returning veterans 
who had faithfully served our country, yet this bill says that they 
should go hungry.
  My constituents are frugal Yankees. They believe that every tax 
dollar should be spent wisely or not spent at all. They agree that we 
cannot afford the subsidies for agribusiness that this underlying bill 
that has now gone over to the Senate continues to include.
  Let's ask ourselves: Who are we as a people? Would we truly not feed 
a homeless veteran? We are Americans, and Americans take care of each 
other. The United States is an exceptional country, and now is the time 
to prove it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I have the honor and privilege to yield 1 
minute to the majority floor leader of the United States House of 
Representatives, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, for the leadership that he has demonstrated throughout this 
process on this bill, on the farm bill, and know that his heart has 
been placed into this process and know that the outcome will be one 
that has been benefited by his leadership throughout the last several 
years in his dedication and leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I do rise today in support of the Nutrition Reform and 
Work Opportunity Act. This bill is designed to give people a hand when 
they need it most. Most people don't choose to be on food stamps. Most 
people want a job. Most people want to go out and be productive so that 
they can earn a living, so that they can support a family, so that they 
can have hope for a more prosperous future. They want what we want.
  If others, and there may be some, choose to abuse the system--that's 
not out of the realm of possibility--frankly, it's wrong for 
hardworking, middle class Americans to pay for that.
  Madam Speaker, I want to tell you a story that's very fitting for 
this bill. There was a woman from Arkansas. Her name was Sherry. She 
moved there to that State with her two children, ages 11 and 14. She 
lived with her mom. The four of them shared a two-bedroom apartment.
  Sherry didn't have much work experience as a stay-at-home mom, so she 
applied for help through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 
otherwise known as the TANF program, the welfare program that President 
Clinton and a Republican Congress reformed in 1996 to impose work 
requirements for able-bodied adults. Sherry's case officer worked with 
her to obtain an on-the-job training position at a local hotel where 
she was hired for an entry-level position before she was quickly 
promoted to being a team leader.
  As the Department of Workforce Services in Arkansas reported, 
Sherry's welfare case was closed and she continued her job at that 
hotel, a job she loved, going so far as to equate her coworkers with 
family. And like a family, when the hotel was remodeled, they gave 
Sherry the hotel furniture for her own apartment.
  Madam Speaker, there is dignity in work. I am supporting this bill 
today because I want to see, as I know all of us do, more success 
stories like Sherry's. The reforms made by this bill will put people on 
the path to self-sufficiency and independence.
  I also want to say, Madam Speaker, there's been a lot of demagoguery 
around this bill and, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation. Because 
the truth is anyone subjected to the work requirements under this bill 
who are able-bodied, who are able-bodied under 50, will not be denied 
benefits if only they are willing to sign up for the opportunity for 
work. There is no requirement that jobs exist. There are workfare 
programs. There are options under the bill for community service. This 
bill is a bill that points to the dignity of a job to help people when 
they need it most with what they want most, which is a job.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Chairman 
Lucas, for his leadership and the gentleman from Florida, who just 
spoke before, Congressman Steve Southerland, for their hard work on 
this issue.
  I would also like to recognize a member of my staff, who I can tell 
you has personally been a teacher to me on welfare policy and how the 
wrong policies can destroy a person's self-identity and lull them into 
a life of dependence, but how the right policies can help lift people 
out of poverty and on a path to independence. Roger Mahan, Madam 
Speaker, who is here in the Chamber, has dedicated his professional 
life to helping lawmakers adopt the right policies. I'm privileged to 
have Roger as a part of my team and as my teacher. This House and this 
country benefit from his knowledge and dedication on this very 
emotional issue, and I thank him for his service and guidance.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 17 minutes remaining.
  Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that one in eight 
Virginians are on SNAP and that able-bodied adults without dependents 
already work if there is a job. We all know that there are three people 
for every available job in this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Meng).
  Ms. MENG. Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this is the second time this 
year that the other side of the aisle has proposed funding SNAP at a 
level that completely disregards the purpose of the program. This 
newest iteration disrespects families struggling to survive and parents 
who are unable to feed their children. It doubles down on a 
determination to end hunger assistance and increase the suffering of 
our Nation's most vulnerable.
  There is only one word that comes to mind: ``cruel''--cruel to 
seniors, cruel to children, cruel to veterans, cruel to people 
struggling to survive with a shred of dignity. Children, elderly, 
disabled, and currently employed make up 92 percent of SNAP recipients. 
Yesterday, an elderly veteran called my office about his incredible 
struggle to purchase enough food. He said that without SNAP, he does 
not know how he will survive.
  I want to take time to thank the organizations in my district and 
throughout New York City--Queens Jewish Community Council, Masbia, CPC, 
KCS, South Asian Council for Social Services, and the Hispanic 
Federation--for the amazing work they do every day to help our 
community.
  I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to the 
millions of people relying on SNAP and the millions more that oppose 
cutting this program.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my next-door neighbor from 
across the State line.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1302.
  Participation in SNAP has grown 83 percent since 2008 and will cost 
us nearly $80 billion this year alone. It is imperative that Congress 
takes steps to rein in this out-of-control entitlement, and I believe 
this bill does that.

[[Page 13995]]

  The work requirements in this bill go to the heart of the reforms I 
have been advocating since I began working on similar bills nearly 3 
years ago. It follows a simple line of thought: if you are a healthy 
adult and don't have someone relying on you to care for them, you ought 
to earn the benefits you receive. Look for work, start job training to 
improve your skills, or do community service, but you can no longer sit 
on your couch or ride a surfboard, like Jason in California, and expect 
the Federal taxpayer to feed you.
  I also would like to applaud my home State of Kansas for moving to 
reinstate work requirements for Kansas adults. The folks in Kansas 
recognize that if you want to help people get back to work, you 
shouldn't pay them not to work. Washington should follow our example.
  Support fiscal responsibility. Support a paycheck over a welfare 
check. Support the bill.

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, the last time we considered devastating 
cuts to nutrition programs, I brought messages my constituents had 
written on paper plates, telling stories of how much the SNAP program 
has helped them. I read aloud each plate's personal, heartbreaking 
story of the difference food assistance makes for a parent, a student, 
or a family, but today I have an empty plate because that's what so 
many of my constituents would see if this bill became law--in fact, 
27,000 to be specific. I thought about bringing 27,000 plates down 
here--like this one--to make my point, but I decided not to create that 
kind of a waste just to make a point that is already so obvious.
  The Republicans want you to believe that we don't have the money to 
feed hungry kids but that we can afford subsidies for Big Oil and tax 
breaks for corporate jet owners. It is ridiculous. If this week doesn't 
show the backward priorities of the Republican majority, I don't know 
what will. This shortsighted, slash-and-burn approach to governing 
won't get this country moving forward.
  Taking food away from children?
  The sad truth is, all that's being served up by the Republicans is a 
lack of vision.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 3102.
  This commonsense bill reforms the SNAP program and simply requires 
that able-bodied adults without dependents obtain employment, 
participate in job training activities, or perform voluntary community 
service activities in exchange for continued benefits.
  I've been hearing a lot of chatter these days about how there aren't 
any jobs out there to get people back to work. Perhaps if government 
weren't killing businesses through overregulation, increased taxes, and 
bureaucratic delays, it might be easier to get people back to work.
  The President did state 3 days ago that the economy was improving and 
jobs were being created, so it seems reasonable to get people into job 
training programs in order to get these job openings filled. Let's say 
the President is wrong about these. Even in the most economically 
challenged areas of this Nation, there are opportunities to better 
one's community through volunteerism.
  Who in this body can argue with work or volunteer requirements for 
able-bodied adults without dependents? When did asking able-bodied 
adults to look for work become an unrealistic or a demeaning request?
  This bill preserves the SNAP program for those who need the 
assistance while also helping them to find employment and live the 
American Dream.
  How does any of that sound unreasonable?
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, in Mr. LaMalfa's 
district, 10 percent of all households are on SNAP.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3102.
  Ending nutrition assistance for millions of hungry children and 
adults in the middle of a fragile economic recovery is, frankly, close 
to the very last thing we should be doing right now. As former 
Republican Senate leader Bob Dole wrote in the LA Times this week, 
``this is no time to play politics with hunger.''
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the district I represent has one of the 
highest concentrations of veterans in all of the United States, and I 
feel morally compelled to point out that the legislation before us 
would end nutrition assistance for as many as 170,000 veterans who 
currently receive it. These are men and women who have served our 
country with honor and who were prepared to give the last full measure 
of devotion to America.
  So, while I absolutely appreciate Mr. Rogers' pointing out the flaw 
herein, assurances, however genuine, that we will try to take care of 
this later do not measure up to the sacrifices these men and women have 
made. Whatever your stereotypical image in your head you carry around 
of the average recipient, please understand that that includes the men 
and women who wore our Nation's uniform, and when you know that, you 
will vote ``no.''
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the 
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
  I commend the chairman for his tireless work on this effort, the 
effort to put in place sensible reforms and close loopholes in order to 
improve this nutrition program. One reform which has been mentioned 
many times is that of the modest work requirements of people who are 
able to do so.
  We will be able to save nearly $40 billion over 10 years. All we are 
asking is that those receiving benefits--who do not have children, who 
are without disabilities, and who do not have any other extreme 
circumstances--simply work, volunteer, train or go to school for 20 
hours a week.
  Mr. Speaker, we are preserving this program for those who truly need 
it. I urge my colleagues to support these important reforms so that the 
truly vulnerable never go hungry.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is still left 
in debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentlewoman 
from Ohio has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi), another of my colleagues on the Agriculture 
Committee.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.
  Mr. Speaker, if this were only about work reforms, that would be 
something, but it's far, far more. These are devastating cuts. Hunger 
is real. In my northern counties, the counties along the Sacramento 
River--Sutter, Glenn, Colusa, and Yuba--20 percent of the citizens are 
hungry. They need food. This bill would dramatically affect that.
  My daughter is a teacher. She has a community garden. She went to 
find a kid from her kindergarten class who wasn't getting on the bus. 
He was hidden underneath the cucumbers in the garden, stuffing his 
pockets full of tomatoes and cucumbers, so that on the weekend he would 
have food for himself and his brother.
  Hunger is real--it's real in every one of our districts--and this 
particular bill devastates the food programs for seniors, for working 
men and women, and for those who desperately need help.
  I oppose the bill. I would ask for compassion from our colleagues on 
the Republican side and to put this bill down and get on with decent 
legislation.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

[[Page 13996]]


  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Anti-Poverty 
Initiative, I have been blessed to work closely with the people ``on 
the ground'' who are committed to lifting people out of poverty. Many 
in Washington believe a hand out is a hand up. It's not. We need a 
social safety net that focuses on the empowering of the individual.
  The men and women I've met with all have wanted me to hear their 
stories. I asked them directly: What do we do that works? What do we do 
that doesn't work, and how can I make it better? All of the men and 
women shared the same themes: Lift me spiritually, not just 
economically. They told me they don't want to be taken care of. They 
want to be able to take care of themselves and are challenged to find 
and utilize the gifts God blessed them with.
  I am proud to say many of the reforms in this bill didn't come from a 
bunch of people in suits and ties here in Washington, D.C. They came 
directly from the American families we are trying to help. This bill is 
a forward-looking approach that propels people towards opportunity. It 
fulfills the promise made in the Declaration--that our country believes 
in the right to pursue happiness however each citizen defines it.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for her leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I lament with Mr. Lucas that we don't have a bipartisan 
bill, because I know that's what he wanted, that that's what he forged 
and that that's what has been abandoned, unfortunately, by his party. I 
think that's sad for the country. It's even sadder for the people who 
will be so adversely affected.
  Mr. Speaker, several weeks after House Republicans broke with 
longstanding practice and cut nutrition program funding out of the farm 
bill, they are now bringing a nutrition-denying bill to the floor. 
Shockingly, their version of nutrition assistance is to cut $40 billion 
over the next 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, called ``SNAP.''
  What does this mean for the 14 percent of our fellow citizens? 
Luckily, 86 percent of us are doing pretty well--we can put a meal on 
the table, and we can feed our children; but 14 percent of our fellow 
citizens can't have confidence that they can do that.
  Has America fallen so low in its moral compass that we are not 
prepared to make sure that, in the richest country on the face of the 
Earth, they have food on their tables? Have we fallen that low?
  It means 210,000 children dropped from the school meals program. It 
means 170,000 veterans in need losing some or all of their food 
assistance. It will affect Americans of all ages, and it will 
especially harm seniors, students, and individuals with disabilities.
  Tuesday's Census Bureau report confirms that too many Americans 
remain in poverty as a result of lingering effects from the recession. 
This is reflected in the rise over the past few years in the number of 
Americans who rely on food assistance to eat a decent meal from day to 
day. In the wealthiest country on Earth, there is no reason why so many 
Americans should have to go hungry, and now is certainly not the time 
for Congress to make it harder for them to feed themselves and their 
families.
  Do we need to bring down the deficit? We do. Do we need to do it on 
the backs of the poor? We do not.
  Instead, we ought to be helping Americans find jobs and access to 
opportunities so they will no longer need SNAP assistance. We should go 
to conference with the Senate, as I know my friend Mr. Lucas wanted to 
do, which passed a bipartisan farm bill in June by a vote of 66-27. 
Two-thirds of the Members of the United States Senate, a majority of 
the House Agriculture Committee, and, in my view, a majority of this 
House wanted to do this, but we did not do it. Of course, we should 
have gone to conference weeks ago, but, sadly, this Congress remains 
dysfunctional.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this punitive legislation, and I call 
on the Speaker to appoint conferees for the farm bill so we can see a 
compromised version reflecting the compassion and wisdom shown by 
bipartisan-acting Congresses over the last four decades.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FUDGE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Lucas for his leadership, and I regret that it 
is not being followed.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This is an 
opportunity to enact commonsense reforms.
  I would like to thank Leader Cantor and especially Chairman Lucas for 
their leadership and long hours of hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, food stamps and farm policy should be considered 
individually and on their own merits. It's just common sense, and it's 
exactly why we are here.
  In July, we passed a farm-only farm bill that ended direct payments 
and made other reforms. Today, we have an opportunity to continue that 
work by passing a food stamp bill that doubles the savings that the 
House originally considered. We can save taxpayers $40 billion by 
eliminating loopholes, ensuring work requirements, and putting food 
assistance on a fiscally responsible path.
  In the real world, we measure success by results. It's time for 
Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of 
poverty and are helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington 
bureaucrats spend year after year.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense step in the 
right direction.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Vargas), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this bill. Senator 
Dole is right: this is no time to play politics with hunger.
  I want to thank those in the faith community that have come out 
against these cuts to the nutrition program because of the moral 
imperative in the Bible from Matthew 25:

       When I was hungry, you gave me to eat.

  I want to thank in particular Reverend David Beckman, who writes:

       The proposed cuts are a clear indication that some in 
     Congress underestimate the hunger that is present in American 
     homes. The bill picks on the poorest people in the country. 
     This is morally and economically unacceptable, especially as 
     some areas continue to experience high unemployment.

  I also want to thank Reverend Stephen Blaire, who said:

       Adequate and nutritious food is a fundamental human right 
     and the basic need that is integral to protecting the life 
     and dignity of the human person.

  Please, defeat this bill. It's the wrong thing to do. In a country as 
rich as our own, we can feed the poor. It's the most basic imperative 
in the Bible.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining for both myself and the ranking member?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio has 8\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the ranking member 
that I potentially have some additional speakers, but they've not made 
an appearance yet. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
if they do not appear.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 1 
minute to our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
thank her also for her leadership on this very important issue to the 
values of our country. Her service on the Agriculture Committee is 
indeed a blessing to us all as we fight for our children.

[[Page 13997]]

  Mr. Lucas, thank you for your leadership of the committee, as well. I 
know you tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. What happened 
after that, I won't go into. I also want to salute Collin Peterson, our 
colleague on the committee. We need a farm bill. We want to have a good 
farm bill for our farmers, for our ranchers, for food security, for our 
country. Hopefully, we can get to that place, but not by doing violence 
to our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this body is so magnificent because it is so diverse. We 
represent districts all over the country. We represent people of 
different backgrounds all over the country. But one thing, among 
others, that we certainly have in common is that each one of us have 
people in our districts who depend on the SNAP program for their 
nutrition. There isn't one person in this room who could rise up and 
say: Nobody in my district relies on the nutrition programs that are in 
the farm bill. Chief among them are children, seniors, veterans and 
their families. They are the real faces of hunger in America, and their 
stories are the most compelling reason to reject this dangerous 
Republican legislation.
  In my district in San Francisco, people from all walks of life have 
relied on the SNAP program to make it through tough and trying times. 
One young woman I want to highlight is Catlin, now in her twenties, 
worked hard at a part-time job to put herself through college. As the 
recession took its toll on students across the country looking for 
work, Catlin found that she could not afford to pay rent and purchase 
food each month. Because she qualified for the emergency food SNAP 
initiative, she was able to get by, get a promotion, and now works full 
time.
  There's Brian, 50 years old and homeless. Even though he searches 
constantly for full-time employment, he spends his spare time 
volunteering at St. Anthony's dining room, helping other people. This 
is a place that helps other people to find food, shelter, clothes, and 
compassion in our community. There he gives back what little he has to 
the community, wholeheartedly serving our seniors, veterans, children, 
and families who also rely on the generosity of people like Brian to 
feed themselves and their loved ones.
  Like Brian and Catlin, millions of people across America are working 
hard and giving all they have to lift themselves up and help others get 
on their feet.
  One of my colleagues said something like if you don't work, you 
shouldn't eat. Something to that effect. I hope I heard it incorrectly. 
It's really important to note that because of the low minimum wage in 
our country, a family of four, with both parents working full time and 
earning the minimum wage, are below the poverty line. They don't even 
come close to the 130 percent of poverty. They are below the poverty 
line. So in some respects the SNAP program is subsidizing a low minimum 
wage in our country, as other support does as well.
  I wish that we could respect how hard it is for a family of four, 
with two people working full time, not making enough money to put food 
on the table, that we respect them for their struggle and for their 
concern for their families and not judge them that they don't have food 
on the table because our country has chosen to pay a sub-living wage to 
so many people in our country.
  The Republican proposal on the floor today slashes the legs on which 
many of these people stand. Indeed, cutting the investments is a full 
assault on the health and economic security of millions of families. 
Consider this: one in five children--it is soon becoming one in four--
struggle with hunger, and nearly half of all SNAP recipients are 
children. Nearly 4 million Americans over age 60 rely on nutrition 
assistance. Five thousand Active Duty military families depend on SNAP. 
Nearly 3 million veterans and their families don't get enough to eat 
each month, and this bill would jeopardize food assistance for as many 
as 170,000 veterans.
  A couple of weeks ago I was in Houston, Texas, visiting my 
grandchild, and we were at mass. The sermon was a beautiful one and 
actually the Gospel was that day, too. Many of our colleagues have 
quoted the Gospel of Matthew, ``When I was hungry, you gave me to 
eat,'' and other parts of the Bible. The Gospel that day was talking 
about how we have a responsibility to each other. In the sermon, the 
priest said something that I think we should consider as we consider 
our vote here today. He said:

       You just can't come to church and pray on Sunday and go out 
     and prey on people the rest of the week.

  This legislation is preying on people, on children, on veterans, on 
seniors, on all those who are struggling to do their best in our 
country.
  It is our moral obligation to reject this legislation and to preserve 
these investments for Americans who need them and other Americans who 
want them to have it. It is our moral duty to vote down this measure 
and to work across the aisle in conference on a comprehensive farm bill 
that ensures food security, supports our farmers and ranchers, and 
strengthens world communities.
  ``Community''--that should be the word of the hour. What is our 
responsibility to community? It certainly isn't to say to kids, We want 
you to do your best in school, but we're not going to fuel your mind by 
giving you food to eat. And it certainly isn't to thank our veterans by 
depriving them or our seniors for all that they have done. Something is 
very wrong with this picture.
  I know one thing for sure: every person who votes for this Republican 
measure is voting to hurt his or her own constituents because we all 
represent people who at some time need help.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act 
of 2013 is rife with fraud, waste and abuse.
  This bill is fraudulent in its claims that it's a benevolent bill 
that merely institutes work requirements and won't hurt children. In my 
very own State of Wisconsin, 4,000 children will lose free and reduced 
lunch, and as the entire family will be able to be penalized, it will 
also hurt the elderly and disabled who live in these households.
  It's fraudulent. It's a bill that is a waste of our constituents' 
belief and stewardship in us that we would do the conscientious and 
right thing for the American people. We just don't throw people under 
the bus when they're in a recession and they can't find employment. 
It's a waste, and it is abusive of 15 percent of Americans and 22 
percent of children who live in abject poverty.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this bill rife with fraud, waste, and 
abuse.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in Arizona, one in four children live in food 
insecurity, unsure of when they'll eat next or where they'll find food. 
Cuts to SNAP will make this already grave situation even worse.
  When I was a kid, my family went through tough times, and after my 
parents got divorced, my mom relied on food stamps to feed us kids. 
Later, when my stepfather was out of work and my family was homeless, 
food stamps once again helped my family survive. Yet, my family was 
lucky. We had friends and family and my parents' church helping us, in 
addition to SNAP. Today, SNAP provides hardworking families with food 
security while they're struggling to make ends meet. The program helped 
me, just as SNAP is helping kids and working families in Arizona today.
  Both family farmers and hungry children in Arizona are waiting on 
Congress to pass a complete farm bill. I've

[[Page 13998]]

called on Congress to put hardworking farmers and families ahead of 
partisanship. Congress should pass a bipartisan farm bill, just as it 
has for decades in the past. Today's bill unfortunately isn't a 
solution for families or farmers.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank Ranking Member Fudge for giving me this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in the back and I heard one of the 
Republicans say that what Moses would want--and he was talking about 
some picture--and I just came up to say that I just talked with Moses, 
and he's not in support of this legislation. As a matter of fact, he 
referred me to other biblical things about how we treat the lesser of 
our brothers and sisters. He directed my attention to the disparity 
between the rich that we have in this country and the very poor.
  I got the impression after reviewing Matthew that if we're going to 
refer to Moses, you can't ignore Jesus, who had some concern about the 
rich people that did not treat their brothers and sisters fairly. I 
don't know how it ends, but it seems as though they were trying to get 
into Heaven and he told them to go to hell.
  I don't know how it spins out, but everything that seems to be 
happening in this House strikes against us helping the kids and the 
vulnerable and helping the sick and the aged. So I would suggest that 
if we have to go to the Bible, everything we're trying to do to hurt 
the poor is not going to count for us when we need God the most.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, it's really hard to know what to say anymore. It's 
impossible for us to rationalize what has become completely irrational, 
but I'm just going to say what it is.
  From the other side, this bill is mean. It's unconscionable. And it's 
really just plain wrong. The rational person would ask, don't they know 
that nearly 4 million people would have benefits cut and would lose 
their benefits entirely? A rational person would ask, don't they know 
that millions of people, beneficiaries, already work, that they go to 
school, and that they're looking for work?
  I know what it's like to struggle to feed a child, to wonder whether 
there's food tomorrow or the next week. Don't they know that this is 
what families across America are struggling with right now? I don't 
know.
  I'll tell you what, I see the plan--shut down government, starve 
children, the elderly, the disabled, demonize the poor, blame them for 
everything. But I'm going to just tell you, when I go to sleep at 
night, I sleep well. After you cast this vote, after Republicans cast 
this vote today, they won't sleep well.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I have only 1 minute, but I would imagine 1 
minute is sufficient to plead with my colleagues to pay attention to 
the facts.
  The U.S. economy has not healed. We are still struggling with $7.25 
an hour for minimum wage. And if you make $7.25 working all day, every 
day, you're going to make slightly over $15,000 a year; and you get 
approximately $4.50 a day to eat on, $4.50.
  I think that there is a right thing that we all can do. We ought to 
join forces to do the right thing; and the right thing is not to 
approve this bill, to back away from it. I mean, we are a rich Nation 
that really is having economic problems. We can deal with our poor. 
Everybody in this country ought to have equal access to food.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that this is a sad 
day because the whole effort to end hunger used to be a bipartisan 
issue. I would say to my Republican colleagues, remember Bob Dole and 
Bill Emerson. Your party has a great tradition, a proud tradition of 
being part of the effort to end hunger, working with Democrats. Don't 
blow that up today.
  What you are doing here is wrong; and I'm urging my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, please don't do this. Please don't do this. 
Please do not do this. This is wrong. This is about how we treat the 
most vulnerable in our society.
  And I have to just say to all my colleagues here, we should be having 
a bigger discussion about how to end hunger; and, instead, what we're 
doing here today is moving in a direction where we are going to make 
hunger worse in this country. You're going to throw 170,000 veterans 
who are unemployed off this program; 3.8 million people will be thrown 
off this program. Surely that is not what you want, but that is what 
your bill does. That is what the bill that never went through the 
Agriculture Committee, that was forced upon this House by the majority 
leader, brought onto the floor under a closed rule does. Please rethink 
this. I know that you are better than this.
  Ms. FUDGE. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a unanimous 
consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation and place a statement in the Record because those who get 
food stamps are not criminals. They are just hungry.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to 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.
  Finding hungry people in the United States is not hard--they are in 
every community. The problem is so dire that--September has been 
declared hunger action month. People in the 18th Congressional District 
along with people in Congressional Districts around the nation are 
putting forth an extra effort to raise awareness that 1 in 6 Americans 
are going without enough food to sustain a healthy life.
  Although the United States is considered to be the world's wealthiest 
nation 14.5 percent or almost 49 million Americans, which includes 15.9 
million children face challenges to getting enough to eat.
  According to the United States Department of Agriculture 50 million 
people experience hunger because they have limited access to resources. 
The type of resources could be adequate or reliable means of 
transportation to where food can be obtained, or money to buy food.
  In the United States 17 million children live in food insecure 
households. Children with inadequate nutrition are affected by 
cognitive and behavior development problems. Eating enough to stay 
alive but not enough to meet nutrition requirements means the body will 
break down muscle and tissue.
  The majority of SNAP recipients which is 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.
  Food insecurity is not limited to urban and suburban areas--over 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.
  Children in food insecure homes--who do not consume healthy food on a 
regular basis are more likely to experience irritability, fatigue, and 
difficulty concentrating.
  These children's ability to get ahead in life are demonstratively 
impacted by food insecurity.
  Nutrition does not need reform--we know what foods are nutritious and 
how much nutritious food should be consumed by each man, woman and 
child regardless of age must consume each day to remain healthy and 
productive.
  We should pass the American Jobs Act:
  If this Congress was serious about work opportunities they would have 
passed the President's American Jobs Act. The irony is that if

[[Page 13999]]

the American Jobs Act had become law it would have significantly 
reduced the numbers of persons in need of food assistance from the 
government.
  Prior to the financial crisis and economic recession, 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 weak economy as being the 
cause of the nearly 65 percent of the growth in spending on benefits 
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.
  Adding the words ``Work Opportunity'' is not about work but about how 
to prevent the working poor from accessing SNAP benefits.
  SNAP benefits also help the working poor which includes those who 
earn 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of 
households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households 
have gross income at or below l00% of the poverty guideline this 
translates into incomes of $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013. These 
households receive about 91% of all benefits.
  Unemployment remains at 7.3 percent with about 11.3 million people 
unemployed. We know that we have 6 million long term unemployed people 
who have been searching for work 27 weeks or longer. In July, 
unemployment percentages for the following states were:
  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. To compound the 
problem--60 percent of the jobs lost were mid-wage occupations--people 
who did not need Federal or State food assistance or housing assistance 
programs.
  These types of 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 at the start of the recession and now make up 
58 percent of the new jobs of the recovery. The number of people who 
are in need of SNAP is greater because the recovery is not as strong as 
it should be nor reaching the people it should reach.
  The bill's version of work opportunity threatens the working poor's 
opportunity to provide food for their families. 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, 
according to the Department of Agriculture 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 as a census tract where the distance to a grocery 
store is more than 10 miles.
  Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a 
result fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, 
vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.
  The result of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other 
health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in 
rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of 
access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support 
normal metabolic functions.
  Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown 
in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease 
and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in 
food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments instead of 
grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast 
foods this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for 
arterial disease a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a 
constant diet of fast foods are also vulnerable to higher risks of 
insulin resistance which results in diabetes.
  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. Hunger is 
persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough 
to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their 
children can eat.
  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.
  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 majority seeks to do everything imaginable to make it more 
difficult for people in this country to get access to affordable 
healthcare, a job that will pay a livable wage or meals that are 
nutritious are difficult to understand.
  The bill would establish a nationwide ``pilot program'' under which 
states could impose new work requirements on SNAP recipients, including 
on parents of young children who are exempt under the current law. It 
would not be in the best interest of young children for their parents 
to leave them unattended and it would not be in the best interest of 
SNAP recipients to choose between rent and childcare.
  The language of the bill authorizes states to conduct drug testing of 
SNAP applicants as a condition of receiving benefits. Since most of the 
benefits go to children, the elderly and disabled the question of drug 
testing is more a facade for a political philosophy than a real world 
problem with drug addiction and Federal and State food programs.
  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. Is there a belief that Mayberry 
exists in every rural area and therefore there could be no possible 
cases of SNAP fraud?
  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. LIHEAP and SNAP are two different programs and they serve 
different purposes. LIHEAP helps when homes are not safe or are in need 
of repairs to make them more safe for human occupation. The problem 
with this formula is that the funds sent for LIHEAP are not nearly 
enough for the numbers of persons who need housing repair. The second 
problem is it would require people who have no need of housing repairs, 
but who may need additional food assistance to apply for the LIHEAP 
program, which is already underfunded in order to get what they really 
need--more food assistance.
  This formula will guarantee that people in need of additional 
assistance under SNAP will never receive it.
  The bill before us would prohibit a state from telling someone they 
know is hungry about SNAP food programs. The bill defines this type of 
communication as recruiting SNAP participants by advertising the SNAP 
program.
  The bill eliminates the ability of states to waive work requirements 
for ``certain able-bodied'' SNAP recipients even when unemployment is 
high. 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 the benefits are not used 
then they will be taken back. The reality is people make decisions 
about where and when to purchase food not based on our schedule but 
their own.
  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% 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 14000]]

  SNAP benefits help the disabled, which include men and women who have 
served our nation during times of war. According to news reports, 
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, when $99 million in food stamps were used on bases. In 
addition, 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 thought our nation's food safety net.
  As elected representatives we should see our nation's vital interest. 
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 bad bill and return the food 
programs to the farm bill.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Lucas, 
for all of his work on the farm bill.
  I want to ask, though, why did we play this charade on the American 
people today? Why would we use hunger and poverty as a political 
football, a game, some kind of sport? This is the people's House, so 
let's do what is best for the American people.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that the time is always right to do 
what is right. And to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
know there's been a lot of arm-twisting to get you to support this 
bill; but, fortunately, I have many friends on that side of the aisle. 
And my friends are known to be people who are compassionate, caring 
patriots. And I implore you to do what is right. Hopefully, you will 
all muster the courage to vote your conscience and do what is morally 
right because if you do it, the others who may not have as much courage 
as you will follow. You will set them free to do what is right.
  It is time to stand up for the American people. Vote ``no'' on this 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  My dear colleagues, on several occasions we have alluded to the 
process that we have gone through now, literally, for years to try to 
craft a comprehensive farm bill.
  I think most of you know that I would have preferred this have been 
accomplished a year ago. I was proud of the committee work done at the 
time, done in a bipartisan way. I was proud, even though we had to 
start over in a new session of Congress, of the bipartisan effort done 
in the committee this time.
  Not every Republican or every Democrat on the committee voted for it; 
but we had a majority of both sides, something that seems to be kind of 
difficult these days on a lot of issues. But that bill came to the 
floor. And even after a number of amendments were adopted by a majority 
of this body primarily focused on the nutrition title, a majority of 
the body chose not to pursue that bill, not to allow it to move on. And 
we were compelled to bring what I affectionately referred to as a farm 
bill only to the floor, one without the critical title dealing with 
nutrition, and we were successful in passing that.
  But as was noted by many of my colleagues on this side of the room, 
that left a critical piece out, the nutrition title. And that's the 
product that we are addressing today. It incorporates all of the 
efforts--I will repeat again--from the committee work dealing with 
categorical eligibility and LIHEAP and advertising and all of those 
things.
  The language we deal with today incorporates the amendments adopted 
by this body in an effort to address the committee bill, empowering 
States through a pilot program to engage able-bodied individuals in 
TANF-type work, ending SNAP eligibility for convicted murderers and 
pedophiles and rapists--not their children, not their spouses, but 
they, themselves. Language allowing the States to very clearly use drug 
testing as a part of their SNAP application process was adopted by a 
majority of the votes on this floor, those items. And now it includes 
language that came out of the leader's working group, things that deal 
with what we refer to as ``able-bodied adults without dependents,'' 
ABAWDs.
  That first committee draft, reform to the tune of about $20 billion. 
Many of the things on the floor would have added to that, perhaps not 
substantially. And in the working group's language, an additional $20 
billion in reform. That presents us with the bill that we're looking at 
today, with virtually everybody's ideas and reform rolled into one, a 
substantial amount of savings in a single bill to reform.
  I would say this to all of my colleagues: you're going to vote your 
conscience today. You understand the bill, each and every one of you. 
You understand, I think from your perspective, the policy implications. 
I happen to believe that the items in this bill are of sufficient merit 
to be discussed in a conference committee; potentially, if the 
conference would agree, to incorporate them in a final conference 
committee report. But that discussion cannot take place if this bill is 
not passed.
  Remember, if this bill is not passed and we go to conference, there 
are no instructions for reform from the House in effect. And what was 
one of the fundamental points that I and my colleagues in the Ag 
Committee discussed as we started this process a long time ago? There 
would be reforms in all parts of the next farm bill--commodity title, 
conservation title, nutrition title. There would be the implementation 
of changes based on our experiences and our learning from the last farm 
bill and series of farm bills.
  I know you're going to vote your conscience; but I ask you, let me go 
to conference with the Senate with the maximum number of options to 
work through because, ultimately, whatever comes out of that conference 
has to be a comprehensive farm bill. It has to address our ability to 
raise the food and fiber safety net. It has to address the safety net 
that affects all of our consumers.
  I will simply close by saying this: as I said at the beginning of 
this debate, it should not be this hard to pass a bill to make sure 
that the consumers in this country and around the world have enough to 
eat. It shouldn't be this hard, but everything seems to be hard these 
days. So let's do the hard things. Let's get our work done. Let's go to 
conference. Let's put a final bill together. Let's fulfill our 
responsibilities.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this misguided attempt 
to cut almost $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program. I do not believe that depriving between 4 and 6 million 
Americans, and 105,000 Oregonians, of access to food will change an 
individual's motivation to find work. It's particularly ridiculous as 
work requirements already exist; this bill simply takes away a state's 
ability to allow for flexibility when there are no jobs or work-
training programs available. I also find it ironic that this Congress 
has refused to apply the same means testing principles it requires for 
the nutrition program to the crop insurance program, which subsidizes 
wealthy farmers without regard to their financial need.
  I oppose this legislation and it saddens me to see it on the House 
floor today.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3102.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to cut $40 billion from U.S. food-aid 
programs, specifically to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP. It's a vote to take food away from millions of 
Americans in poverty, and it's a vote to poison America's economic 
growth from the ground up.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cuts 
in this bill will cause 14 million people to lose SNAP benefits in the 
next decade.
  The head of the local food bank in my District, the Second Harvest 
Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, told me yesterday that 
her organization [quote] ``simply cannot fill the meal gap these cuts 
would create'' [unquote]. This means children, the elderly, veterans, 
single mothers, and others who rely on SNAP will go hungry.
  SNAP benefits are part of America's social safety net. Like 
unemployment insurance,

[[Page 14001]]

SNAP is a part of our economic recovery strategy.
  And it's been a successful strategy.
  According to the Census Bureau, SNAP lifted 4 million people out of 
poverty in 2012--the highest level on record. That's in addition to 
making tens of millions more Americans less poor by reducing the gap 
between their income and the poverty line.
  Seventy-five percent of households receiving SNAP benefits have a 
senior citizen, a child, or a person with a disability. Fifty percent 
of households receiving SNAP benefits live below the poverty line.
  These are the faces of our fellow Americans. These are the people who 
will be hurt by this pernicious bill.
  Vote no on H.R. 3102.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3102, the majority's extreme legislation to cut 4 million seniors, 
working families, and individuals with disabilities from the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  SNAP is an effective, short-term anti-poverty program designed to 
help families stay on their feet when they face tough times and to 
ensure seniors and individuals with disabilities have access to the 
food they need.
  On average, SNAP recipients receive about $4.80 a day for food. How 
many on the floor of this chamber spent more than that on their cup of 
coffee this morning? I imagine very few of my colleagues can honestly 
say they can feed themselves, let alone their families, every day for 
that amount of money.
  Despite these facts, the bill we debate today will gut SNAP. These 
$40 billion in cuts will eliminate benefits for nearly 4 million 
Americans this year and further cut 3 million people off the program 
every year for the next decade. These cuts are designed to reduce SNAP 
enrollment and spending but ignore the link between SNAP and our 
economy. When the economy collapsed in 2008, SNAP enrollment increased 
as more families struggled to make ends meet amid record high 
unemployment. That is how the program is supposed to work, and as our 
economy continues to recover and more Americans go back to work, SNAP 
enrollment and spending has gone down and will continue to decrease. 
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if we do nothing and let 
the economy improve, SNAP spending will return to its low 1995 levels 
as a percent of GDP in the next six years.
  The majority claims this bill will increase incentives for SNAP 
recipients to work. That claim belies the fact that millions of 
Americans who do work still rely on SNAP to meet their needs. Further, 
in New York State, the bill would actually have the opposite effect. 
The state receives nearly $170 million in federal funding, and 
leverages nearly $140 million in local funding, for job training and 
placement efforts to get SNAP recipients back in the workforce and 
transition them away from government assistance. Yet this bill would 
eliminate or severely cut funding for those programs, making it harder 
for individuals to find work and get back on their feet.
  Rather than rewarding states for helping unemployed individuals, in a 
perverse twist, the only actual incentive this bill contains is one for 
states to kick SNAP recipients out of the program if they cannot find a 
job or job training. That approach will only serve to push more 
families on to government programs instead of lifting them out of 
poverty.
  If we really want to reduce the number of people who use SNAP, we 
should focus on job creation legislation to assist the millions of 
Americans looking for work and on passing a budget that supports 
instead of undermines our economic recovery. Putting people back to 
work and rebuilding our economy is the only responsible way to ensure 
seniors and working families have the food and the resources they need.
  But instead, we are voting to slash this vital safety net program and 
telling millions of Americans: good luck. Good luck putting food on 
your table tonight and ensuring your children succeed in school without 
the food they need. Good luck affording your prescription medication 
and making your mortgage payment this month.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not turn my back on those millions of Americans 
who rely on SNAP to feed their families and get back on their feet. I 
urge my colleagues to vote no on these extreme cuts.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans have 
succeeded at taking a bad bill and making it even worse. I 
categorically oppose the bill before the House today, which heartlessly 
cuts nearly $40 billion from nutrition assistance programs, which 
assist the most vulnerable in our communities to stave off hunger and 
poverty. To enact this into law is outright shameful and runs counter 
to our most fundamental values as a nation. For seniors, children in 
low-income families, the disabled, and those who have lost jobs; food 
and nutrition programs are a lifeline and must be preserved.
  Nearly 49 million Americans and 17.6 million U.S. households are food 
insecure, while nearly 17 million of these individuals are children, 5 
million are seniors and 300,000 are elderly veterans. Last month, the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report 
stating that in the aftermath of the recession, food hardship remained 
extremely high as more than 8 million Americans lost their jobs. From 
the unemployed factory worker to the teacher who lives paycheck to 
paycheck, hunger and poverty affect every community in America. 
Certainly, the need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP 
can fill, and food banks and charities have stepped up to the plate to 
address these additional needs. Demand for assistance at food banks has 
increased 46 percent during the recession, so it's no surprise they are 
having a hard time keeping up with the current levels of need.
  Yet last month, rather than moving forward to pass a full Farm Bill 
last month, Republicans are doubling down on a failed strategy that 
only serves to undermine the health of millions of Americans and has no 
chance of becoming law since this bill will not pass the Senate or be 
signed into law by the President. Indeed, one would think that House 
Republicans' failure to pass their comprehensive, five-year Farm Bill, 
or subsequent partisan bills, should compel them to work with Democrats 
on behalf of the food and economic security of hardworking Americans, 
yet that is not the path they have chosen.
  It's time for Republicans to trade in their pointless and partisan 
agenda for responsible solutions that will promote, expand, and 
strengthen America's middle class.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the draconian Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.
  Rather than consider a bipartisan Farm Bill that would help hungry 
Americans and provide certainty for farmers and ranchers over the next 
five years, the House has instead decided to bring to the floor a 
partisan measure that would hurt those most in need and has no chance 
of passage in the United States Senate.
  This legislation is wrong on many levels. First, the nutrition 
provisions were never intended to be considered separately from the 
other titles of the Farm Bill, as has been the bipartisan tradition for 
the past several decades.
  As the distinguished former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said, 
``stripping the nutrition title from the [Farm Bill] . . . has severed 
the vital tie that helps connect our food system with those who 
struggle with hunger in our own backyard.''
  This bill, in fact, is all pain and no gain.
  It is estimated that the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act 
will cause between four to six million low-income individuals to lose 
their SNAP benefits entirely. As many as 210,000 children potentially 
could lose their school meals and 850,000 households could see their 
benefits slashed by an average of $90 per month.
  In Georgia's Second Congressional District. which I represent and 
where 26 out of the 29 counties are sparsely populated and rural, 
nearly a quarter of the households receive SNAP benefits. Many of them 
could be in jeopardy of reduced benefits or a loss of benefits 
altogether if these cuts are enacted.
  I know that supporters of this legislation are claiming that the 
reductions in SNAP benefits are intended to crack down on waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the program. They ignore the fact that the SNAP program 
actually has one of the lowest error and overpayment rates of any large 
federal program.
  Last year, the SNAP overpayment rate was 2.77%, and that includes 
overpayments due to errors and due to fraud. By contrast, the rate of 
error and fraud in the federal income tax system is about 15%.
  Supporters of the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act also 
claim that the legislation particularly the tough work requirements--
will move people off of SNAP benefits and into full-time employment, 
leading to self-sufficiency. In fact, the bill immediately eliminates 
the ability of states to waive SNAP work requirements in areas of high 
employment or where no jobs are available.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this 
provision would end SNAP benefits to 1.7 million individuals whom live 
in high unemployment areas, even if they want to work and are looking 
for employment, but either cannot find a job or a place in a training 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act would 
devastate the safety net and lead to millions of hungry Americans 
throughout the nation.

[[Page 14002]]

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again on the Floor today we have a 
program with historic bipartisan support made divisive by the most 
extreme wing of the Majority party.
  For decades, the Farm Bill has coupled programs for our nation's 
farmers with food assistance for our most vulnerable citizens, 
including children and the elderly. In June, the Senate passed a Farm 
Bill with a bipartisan vote of 66-27. But here in the House, rather 
than working together for a solution that gives certainty to farmers 
and maintains the safety net for the hungry, we have seen a one-sided 
process that first stripped food assistance from the Farm Bill 
altogether and now proposes draconian cuts to the program.
  Slashing $40 billion from SNAP would eliminate benefits for 4 million 
Americans. It would damage the safety net for our most vulnerable 
citizens--nearly half of SNAP recipients are children and 16.5% of 
households receiving benefits include seniors. Many are veterans or 
Americans out of work through no fault of their own in high 
unemployment areas. These are not lavish benefits--in my home state of 
Maryland, the average SNAP benefit is only $128 per month. These are 
critical dollars that help fight hunger as American families work to 
get back on their feet after the recession.
  The current Farm Bill is set to expire at the end of this month. But 
rather than move forward, the majority has brought forth an extreme 
proposal that is a nonstarter with the Senate and the President. It's 
time to stop these partisan games--I urge a no vote.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at the blatant disregard for 
our Nation's poor displayed on this floor today. This bill before us 
cuts over forty billion from nutrition assistance programs, stripping 
away desperately needed food assistance benefits from over four million 
Americans, including up to 170,000 of our veterans. In addition, over 
two hundred thousand hungry children would be kicked off the school 
lunch program as a result of this Republican bill. That is an absolute 
disgrace. Who would agree to send all of those children to school 
hungry? Who would want to literally take food out of the mouths of our 
children?
  As a father I cannot even imagine doing such a thing to one child 
much less hundreds of thousands. For decades I have been involved in 
helping create a better environment for our students in schools. How 
can we expect our Nation to move forward when our students are 
literally starving while trying to better themselves while learning on 
empty stomachs?
  If this bill becomes law it will be devastating. I plead with my 
Republican colleagues. Do not be so cruel to our most vulnerable 
citizens, to our children, and to our veterans. Vote down this bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit two articles into 
the Congressional Record. The first is an op-ed that I wrote about the 
importance of federal nutrition assistance that was published in the 
St. Paul Pioneer Press. The second is a powerful story published in the 
Star Tribune and written by Sue Bulger, a Minnesotan, whose family uses 
SNAP benefits.
  As Members of Congress, we cannot ignore the harm enacting the 
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 3102) will have on 
millions of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this bill and instead come together to craft a bill that strengthens 
SNAP and ends hunger in America.

                  Congress Must Help Eliminate Hunger

                          (By Betty McCollum)

       For too many Minnesotans, a steady job no longer provides 
     the guarantee of being able to always afford food for their 
     family. One out of five children in the United States, 
     including thousands in Minnesota, lives in a household 
     struggling to put enough food on the table.
       As many families continue to work toward recovery from one 
     of the worst economic recessions, Congress must commit itself 
     to helping struggling families make ends meet and providing a 
     brighter, healthier future for their children.
       The Supplemental Nutrition Access Program makes it possible 
     for more than 45 million low-income families, people with 
     disabilities and seniors to avoid hunger when times are 
     tough. Simply put, SNAP helps our most vulnerable neighbors 
     feed their children and themselves when they would otherwise 
     run out of food before the next payday.
       Working to eliminate hunger should be a bipartisan goal, 
     but House Republicans have put SNAP on the fiscal chopping 
     block. In July, Republicans tried to eliminate nutrition 
     benefits for nearly 2 million Americans, including more than 
     30,000 Minnesotans, by cutting $20.5 billion from SNAP. That 
     harmful attack failed to pass the House. Instead of finding a 
     bipartisan solution to fight hunger, Republicans have decided 
     to double down on increasing hunger.
       On Monday, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-
     Okla.) put forward a bill to cut an estimated $39 billion 
     from SNAP over the next decade. This latest Republican attack 
     could eliminate benefits for as many as 3.8 million Americans 
     and force many more struggling families to stretch their 
     limited budgets even further. It would also cut funding for 
     SNAP Nutrition Education, which supports nutrition education 
     and teaches healthy food choices.
       SNAP Ed programs help Minnesotans stretch an average daily 
     food budget of less than $4 to buy and prepare healthy meals. 
     Hands-on cooking classes and interactive grocery store tours 
     are offered to help individuals make smart, beneficial 
     decisions. With less money to spend on groceries each month, 
     the necessity of nutrition education becomes even more real.
       Last month, I attended a Cooking Matters nutrition 
     education class in St. Paul sponsored by University of 
     Minnesota Extension and Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry 
     campaign. Since 2011, more than 1,600 Minnesota families have 
     been empowered with the skills, knowledge and confidence to 
     prepare nutritious, affordable meals. These extension classes 
     are critical to ensure that households can continue putting 
     healthy food on the table for their children. Studies 
     demonstrate that children who get enough of the healthy food 
     they need grow up facing fewer health problems, perform 
     better in school, lead more productive lives and are less 
     likely to struggle with hunger as adults. Nutrition education 
     programs like Cooking Matters are essential to helping 
     families gain the skills they need.
       These GOP cuts will do nothing except increase hunger and 
     poverty across America. Throughout the summer, I heard from 
     faith leaders, community advocates, government officials and 
     other Minnesotans deeply concerned by the Republican efforts 
     to eliminate SNAP for struggling Americans. The local focus 
     is on ending hunger. As Patricia Lull, executive director of 
     the St. Paul Area Council of Churches, put it, ``No more 
     hungry neighbors!''
       SNAP is the most powerful and effective anti-hunger program 
     for children that exists. To reduce childhood hunger in 
     Minnesota and across America, we must continue to invest in 
     SNAP and nutrition education services.
       The Republican plan will deny nutrition assistance to 
     millions of Americans and cruelly increase hunger. Congress 
     needs to defeat this cruel and immoral proposal. To keep all 
     our families healthy, strong and hunger-free it is critical 
     that Congress fully fund SNAP, not cut it.
                                  ____


                 Shamed in Edina for Using Food Stamps

                            (By Sue Bulger)

       To the irritated lady at the Cub Foods, I should have told 
     you to your face that you were being presumptuous.
       This is an apology to the lady behind me in line at Cub 
     Foods in Edina on a recent Sunday night. This is also a 
     reminder to me and to others who have ever slipped into 
     believing that we are just a little better than others we 
     encounter.
       We were at the checkout, and just as the cashier started 
     ringing me up, I saw you come to the line with a small order 
     in your basket. My first apology is that I could not let you 
     go ahead of me, but the checkout process had already begun.
       My second apology was for pulling out my pile of discount 
     coupons for the order, and especially when one required the 
     manager's assistance. I know I was holding you up.
       And then I swiped my payment method and you lost your 
     patience. It was EBT--``food stamps.''
       I did not observe you, but my daughter was with me packing 
     the groceries and saw it all: ``EBT: Yeah, right,'' you 
     muttered, with that look of disgust that would have shattered 
     someone feeling just a little bit of shame over needing food 
     stamps.
       As we walked to the car, my daughter told me what had 
     happened, and I sensed her resolve about having made the 
     right decision to work for social justice as she starts her 
     senior year in a social-work program.
       We talked about you all the way to the car, and about how 
     sorry we felt for people who were judged because they 
     depended on support from others. But my real apology is that 
     I did not make eye contact with you and get out of the car to 
     talk with you as you got into your car right next to mine.
       Instead, I did what many people would do: I felt ashamed 
     and humiliated and angry about your ignorance.
       If I'd had the guts to talk with you, I would have told you 
     about my disabled 28-year-old son living with us. We have 
     never asked for public support for him.
       But recently we have decided that it is our responsibility 
     to introduce him to the programs that will have to support 
     him when we are no longer here to care for him. We started 
     small: He is eligible for food support, and he agreed to 
     receive it to be able to feel that he is contributing his 
     share to the food bill, since he is unable to work.
       I know we looked like people you might think need EBT: a 
     bit unkempt in sweatpants and T-shirts. If I'd had the guts 
     to talk to you, I would have told you that I'd just had an 
     emergency surgery and that my daughter came home from college 
     five hours away to help for the weekend because my

[[Page 14003]]

     husband had scheduled surgery two days after mine. I haven't 
     been able to put on real clothes yet, and I can't lift a bag 
     of groceries.
       I thought I could handle your disdain, since I am a 
     professional working at a local corporation where I am 
     surrounded every day by people who respect me and care about 
     me. But it still made me feel a little dirty--unworthy--and I 
     still went home and cried in the privacy of my shower so my 
     family would not know I was hurt by you.
       I am sorry I did not tell you all of this in person. What 
     my daughter and I resolved is that we will never let my son 
     (her brother) go to the store alone with his Electronic 
     Benefits Transfer card and be subjected to this humiliation.
       We all have our stories, and no one is any better than 
     another. Everyone deserves the respect they want for 
     themselves, even if they use an EBT card to pay for their 
     groceries.
       Sue Bulger lives in Minneapolis.

  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concern 
about H.R. 3102: the so called ``Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity 
Act of 2013''. At a time when so many Americans are still struggling to 
recover from one of the greatest periods of economic downturn in our 
history, it is an outrage to me that Congress would once again seek to 
cut vital food assistance programs.
  These are programs that ensure our children, our parents and 
grandparents, and America's working families get basic nutritional aid 
when they've fallen on hard times. And the timing couldn't be worse. 
Just last year, as a result of the short sighted budget cuts known as 
sequestration, many of our seniors were already hit hard by cuts to 
programs like Meals on Wheels. Some estimates put those cuts as high as 
19 million fewer meals each year. And now Congress wants to cut food 
stamps for millions of Americans?
  Let me be clear, food stamps are critical to the health and wellbeing 
of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. In New Jersey's 8th 
District, nearly thirty eight thousand (38,000) households rely on this 
benefit to feed their families. Statewide, 45 percent of recipients are 
children and nearly 25 percent are either elderly or disabled adults.
  I understand the need to bring our budget under control, but I 
encourage my colleagues to find a smarter path forward. Let us not 
balance the budget on the backs of those among us who are the most 
vulnerable.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the draconian 
cuts in the SNAP program being proposed by H.R. 3102. This bill would 
cut $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and 
deny many vulnerable people the opportunity to feed themselves and 
their families. SNAP has already been reduced to dangerous levels and 
if this bill becomes law, 3.8 million people will no longer be able to 
receive this help by 2014. This is in addition to the drop in benefits 
that will occur when the provisions of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act expire at the end of October. This bill unnecessarily 
targets state and territorial governments struggling with high 
unemployment and ex-offenders trying to turn their lives around.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on misconceptions about the SNAP 
Program. These misconceptions have led some of my colleagues to believe 
that SNAP is out of control, or that it needs reasonable work 
requirements or that there are loopholes that allow people who don't 
need it, to get it.
  This is far from the truth. SNAP is not out of control, it is now 
being used by the many households that slid from the middle class into 
poverty during the Great Recession. The number of eligible households 
have increased and the urgent caseload has been expanded. In my 
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands there are over 9,000 households who 
receive this vital assistance monthly. Twenty-one million participate 
across the country. We cannot and should not leave these people behind. 
This bill also wants to take SNAP assistance away from those who get 
LIHEAP assistance, and for my district, which has some of the highest 
energy costs in the country, it would be catastrophic for those 
families who are already struggling to keep the lights on.
  There are already work requirements for childless unemployed adults 
who can only receive SNAP for three months every three years unless 
they are working 20 hours per week or more. This bill wants to remove 
the ability of Governors to waiver these requirements when their states 
and territories have high unemployment. I can tell you as the 
representative of a territory whose unemployment has skyrocketed due to 
a plant closure, through no fault of the workers who are left behind 
and must now utilize food stamps even though they prefer to work, this 
would be catastrophic and leave many people without resources.
  Loopholes can and should be addressed, but not at the expense of 
those who are vulnerable, like children who need the free school meals, 
that are sometimes their only real meal of the day. I took the food 
stamp challenge, and believe me, it is barebones, no luxuries there, 
only sustenance for those who need it most.
  Mr. Speaker, Hungry people in America did not create the Great 
Recession or the financial downturn or the wars that have drained our 
treasury. They should not have to pay with hunger or a lack of a life 
line.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these cuts to this vital food program.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to oppose the 
Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 3102) to cut SNAP 
funding by $40 billion over the next ten years.
  H.R. 3102 denies SNAP to millions of poor, jobless adults without 
children whose incomes average only about one-fifth of the poverty 
line--and ends benefits for entire families if a parent is not working 
at least 20 hours per week. States will cut off families without 
considering high unemployment or care for small children to receive 
rewards promised in the bill.
  The need for food assistance has increased dramatically during our 
nation's economic slump. Texas's rate for food insecurity is 27.6%--
more than one in four Texas children is food insecure. As of the 2011 
Census, over 42,000 residents of the 29th District receive SNAP 
benefits.
  The impacts to Texas would be devastating, including 171,000 people 
immediately off of SNAP and the elimination of almost 500 million meals 
from hungry Texans.
  Meeting the need for food assistance is especially critical for our 
most vulnerable citizens--pregnant and nursing women, infants, 
children, and seniors for whom the consequences of hunger and poor 
nutrition are the most severe. It is critical that we maintain support 
for the charitable food system and funding for SNAP.
  I have been a strong supporter of SNAP in Congress to help those who 
are food insecure during their time of need. Our office works closely 
with the Houston Food Bank, the largest in the country, and the Texas 
Food Bank Network to help end hunger in America.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 
3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, which 
calls for $40 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, also known as the SNAP program. This program currently 
provides food assistance to a total of 47 million Americans, 3.1 
million of which are New Yorkers. Without SNAP, these recipients would 
not have access to one of our most basic human needs--food.
  Four to six million low income Americans, including low income 
children, seniors, and the disabled, will lose their food assistance as 
a result of these cuts. These cuts would come in addition to a benefit 
cut already scheduled to take place in November.
  The SNAP program is a promise our government made to Americans to 
ensure there would be assistance for both the working poor and those 
individuals out of work--including parents and their children--so they 
can afford food. It also helps low income working families whose wages 
are not sufficient to make ends meet.
  I am particularly concerned about the negative impact the cuts will 
have on the nutritional needs of children. If children go to school 
hungry and malnourished, learning becomes even more difficult. The 
worst possible thing we could do is deny healthy meals to needy 
children at a time when they need all the help they can get to succeed 
in the classroom and begin to build productive lives.
  We have seen in recent years that families continue to face a 
shortage of jobs or are being paid wages too low to lift them out of 
poverty. This legislation does nothing to help this group of Americans 
and will lead to even greater costs in the long run.
  One thing we should all remember is that increasing hunger is not the 
answer to reducing the deficit.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  I opposed the first farm bill this House considered because of a 
$20.5 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP). I opposed the second attempt to pass a farm bill, because it 
completely removed the Nutrition title of the farm bill. And I oppose 
this bill today because the Majority has doubled down on a bad policy 
with a nearly $40 billion cut to SNAP.
  Right now, as the U.S. is emerging from a great recession, robust 
nutrition programs are needed more than at any time in recent history.
  In New Jersey the number of SNAP participants over a 5 year period 
has doubled from 437,860 monthly participants in 2008, up to

[[Page 14004]]

875,437 participants in June of this year. These families need just a 
little assistance in order to afford the most basic of needs--something 
to eat.
  The Majority here in the House has titled this legislation the 
``Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.'' Some of my 
Democratic colleagues have called this bill the ``More Hunger, Less 
Opportunity Act.'' I personally think we should call the bill before us 
today the ``Malnutrition Act'' because even though 92 percent of people 
on SNAP are children, elderly, disabled, or already working, this bill 
would take the food out of their mouths, hurting nearly 4 million 
Americans next year.
  Representatives here in Congress continually punctuate their 
arguments with assertions that the U.S. is the greatest, most powerful, 
most wealthy country in the world.
  Well, the greatest country in the world makes sure that working 
families, children, seniors, veterans, and the unemployed have the 
support they need to afford something to eat.
  It is not simply the existence of wealth and power that makes the 
U.S. exceptional; it is the willingness to use that wealth and power to 
help the less fortunate among us. It is the ability of our elected 
leaders to not just make the rich richer but to make sure that the 
hungry are fed.
  I'm sick and I'm tired of these ceaseless attempts to cut spending at 
the expense of those who can least afford it, but at least I'm not 
going hungry tonight. With $40 billion in SNAP cuts I could not claim 
as much for the 4 million Americans who will suffer from the cuts in 
this bill.
  In 2011 I joined my wife, representatives from the Community Food 
Bank of New Jersey, and a local SNAP beneficiary to shop for a week's 
worth of food with the average weekly SNAP benefit of $31.50. I have 
always looked at prices when I shop, but never in the past 30 years 
have I had to watch the budget this closely. I left that experience 
with a strong reminder of what beneficiaries of federal nutrition 
programs experience week in and week out.
  When the House farm bill passed, minus the Nutrition title, the 
Majority claimed that they were not taking a position, but Democrats 
opposed the bill because we knew the position of our colleagues.
  So, thank you Mr. Speaker for bringing this bill to the Floor today, 
because now all of our constituents across the country can see clearly 
where every Member of Congress stands in the fight against hunger in 
America.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, when the voting took 
place for H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 
2013, unfortunately, I was unable to be present to vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted no for the following reason:
  The bill, H.R. 3102, would cut $40 billion from the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will adversely affect poor 
people and lower benefits to households with children. Seventy-six 
percent of SNAP's recipients are households with children. SNAP is an 
anti-hunger program that is immensely effective in providing assistance 
to a minimum of 47 million individuals and families across America. In 
addition to food benefits, SNAP educates people on ways as to how one 
may use food dollars wisely and live a healthier lifestyle by promoting 
the importance of nutrition. A key component of SNAP is their ``No Kid 
Hungry'' campaign, which, aims at fighting against childhood hunger in 
America by partnering with communities to enroll eligible families with 
half of the program recipients being children. Reducing spending over 
the next few years by billions of dollars will affect the lives of 
Americans who depend on these programs to help put food on the table 
for their families.
  The current legislation under consideration for today would deny food 
benefits to at least 4 million low-income Americans and make certain 
working adults with an average income of about $2,500 per year and no 
guardianship of children ineligible to receive food benefits. This may 
include our veterans, Native Americans and many individuals that live 
in areas where there is chronically high unemployment. H.R. 3102 is a 
bill that is unreasonable and beneath the conduct of a Congressional 
body to impose such a policy initiative that will not help the poorest 
and neediest Americans among us.
  Additionally, H.R. 3102 contains language that permanently bars 
formerly incarcerated individuals convicted of certain federal or state 
crimes and their families from receiving full SNAP benefits. As you may 
know, SNAP is about children and helping the poor and the needy. Why 
should anyone think that children should be denied adequate food and 
nutrition just because of the sins of the father or mother or 
caregiver, especially after they have paid their debt to society and 
reentered into normal community life? If this bill becomes law, it 
would restrict and deny the basic needs of children based on the 
parentage's criminal history of certain crimes and not on the essential 
eligibility requirement of income resulting from their financial 
status. As a result, H.R. 3102 would develop unintended consequences 
resulting in ancillary hardships to our neediest population. Given our 
nation's economic recovery, high unemployment rate, and the wide 
prevalence of food insecurity among children, all are directly 
problematic to the SNAP program. Every $1 in SNAP new benefits would 
generate up to $1.80 in economic activity. Every time a family uses 
SNAP benefits for healthy food on the table, it benefits the store and 
the employees where the purchase was made including the truck driver 
who delivered the food, the warehouses that stored it, the plant that 
processed it, and the farmer who produced the food. Each $1 billion 
increase in SNAP benefits is estimated to create and maintain 18,000 
full time jobs including 3,000 farm jobs. SNAP benefits have a powerful 
anti-poverty effect that the Census Bureau reports would lift 3.9 
million Americans--including 1.7 million children--out of poverty. SNAP 
alleviates hunger and improves nutrition by increasing the food 
purchasing power of low-income households, enabling them to obtain a 
more nutritious diet that contributes to the prevention of obesity, 
diseases, and food insecurity.
  Cutting funding is a threat to SNAP's mission to alleviate the health 
problems many children face in America. Studies indicate that children 
who are provided with healthier food are less likely to develop health 
problems and more likely to excel better in school. Sixty-two percent 
of teachers in a survey said that they have children in their 
classrooms that come to school hungry regularly because they are not 
getting enough food to eat at home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GALLEGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed in its current form.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gallego moves to recommit the bill (H. 3102) to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, with instructions to report the 
     bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of title I of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 142. PROTECTING VETERANS, SENIORS, PREGNANT WOMEN, AND 
                   CHILDREN FROM HUNGER.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act, or the amendments 
     made by this Act, shall result in a delay in issuing or 
     providing benefits otherwise provided or available to a 
     veteran, elderly or disabled member, pregnant woman, or minor 
     child in the case of a Government shutdown or default.
       (b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     definitions of ``elderly or disabled members'' and 
     ``benefit'' shall have the respective meanings as defined in 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012).

  Mr. LUCAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes on his motion to recommit.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, Members, we all know the rule that this 
motion doesn't kill the bill or send it back to committee. It just adds 
an amendment before proceeding to final passage.
  There's a lot of confusion even here as the debate goes back and 
forth about whether or not veterans or kids are or are not included. 
There is a lot of apprehension around and across the country about the 
sequester and the budget and the government shutdown

[[Page 14005]]

and how that impacts many, many different services.
  Because SNAP is a hybrid program, part automatic and part not, the 
benefits that it provides are in jeopardy. So regardless of whether or 
not SNAP and the cuts here today affect kids or veterans, this is a 
safety net.
  This motion to recommit simply says that there will be no delay in 
benefits for kids, for the elderly, for the disabled, or for pregnant 
women in case of a government shutdown or a default.

                              {time}  1730

  Much has been made of this huge philosophical divide in this Chamber, 
but the truth is that there is a lot of consensus, too, a lot of 
commonality. All of us--all of us--want efficient government. We all 
love our kids. We're all taught to respect our elders, and we are all 
grateful for the services of our veterans.
  And yet, in typical Congressional fashion, this bill decimates an 
efficient program that's not even broken. It has only a 3 percent error 
rate, a very low error rate. Ninety-seven percent of SNAP beneficiaries 
get SNAP because they need it. Ninety-one percent of SNAP benefits go 
to households below the poverty level. That's $11,000 for an individual 
or $19,000 for a family of three people.
  I want to particularly focus that 82 percent of the households 
receiving SNAP have kids or elderly. 210,000 kids will lose their 
school lunch, and for many, it's the only good and reliable meal that 
they have. As a parent of a young son, I bet I know some of those kids. 
And you know what? I bet you know some of those kids, too.
  The nonprofit group Feed Our Vets says that there are many vets who 
already don't have enough to eat, and yet 170,000 veterans have their 
SNAP benefits impacted under this legislation.
  We can have that fundamental philosophical divide about the budget or 
about the debt or about many things, but we should all agree that we 
should take care of our kids. And we can all agree that we owe an 
obligation to our veterans.
  Already, in November, without any action by this Congress, SNAP will 
automatically lose its ARRA funding. The average beneficiary gets $133 
a month. That's about $1.40, a little under, per meal. Try eating for 
$1.40 a meal or $133 per month.
  San Antonio's food bank already serves 58,000 people per week. 
Imagine how many they'll serve if this bill goes into effect.
  And speaking of San Antonio, there's a young lady there, a working 
mother of three kids. Her name is Delaney. She works full-time at a 
doctor's office. That's 40 hours a week. She raises three young boys, 
one the age of my own son.
  Delaney said to me, I'm trying my best. I'm working hard. She'd like 
to get a second job, but there'd be nobody at home to take care of the 
kids.
  SNAP isn't a luxury for her, by any means--it's a necessity. The 
family relies on that, especially towards the end of the month when 
their budget is tight, to help them put food on the table.
  If we can make the program more efficient, let's look at that; but 
this bill cuts $40 billion without public testimony, without public 
hearings, without investigation, without input. Somebody just decided 
that $40 billion needed to be cut. It is not a well-reasoned or a 
reasonable approach. Our veterans deserve more than that. Our kids 
deserve better than that.
  Regardless of what happens on the debt ceiling or the government 
shutdown, let's not make our kids and our veterans casualties of a 
prolonged conversation. Let's be sure that there is no delay in SNAP 
benefits for kids, for veterans, for the elderly, for the disabled, or 
for pregnant women in the event of a government shutdown or default.
  I'd ask all of you, because this is simply a safety net, to please 
vote ``yes'' on this motion, because all it says is, in the event of a 
government shutdown, these people--the veterans, the kids, the elderly, 
and the disabled--will be protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma wish to 
withdraw his reservation on the point of order?
  Mr. LUCAS. I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side can say the 
same thing over and over again, but it does not make it true. This 
motion does nothing.
  Food stamps are not affected by a government shutdown. No one--not a 
struggling mother, not a child, a veteran, or any person in need--will 
be denied benefits if they meet the program's current law and 
eligibility requirements.
  All this bill does is ask them, just as we did in a bipartisan way in 
1996, to prepare for work or participate in their communities in 
exchange for services.
  But those much-lauded welfare reforms of 1996 have been thrown aside 
without the input of this Congress for years and has undermined the 
well-being of families participating in this program.
  Work has been proven to be a beneficial part of the physical and 
mental health of every individual. It raises their family income and 
improves the outcomes of their children.
  Why do the opponents of this bill want to undermine this successful 
strategy for reducing hunger in America by increasing workforce 
participation and increasing incomes of American families?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful motion and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3102, if ordered, and approval of the 
Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 475]

                               YEAS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)

[[Page 14006]]


     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--230

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Braley (IA)
     Cleaver
     Davis, Danny
     Engel
     Herrera Beutler
     Johnson (GA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Polis
     Rush

                              {time}  1759

  Messrs. REED, COBLE, ROONEY, MARCHANT, STIVERS, ROGERS of Alabama, 
and HUNTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WELCH, CAPUANO, SHERMAN, HOYER, and Mrs. CAPPS changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 475, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--210

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier

[[Page 14007]]


     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Davis, Danny
     Engel
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Polis
     Rush


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1807

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________