[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2162-2179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK 
                         MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2014

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 465, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform 
and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department 
of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, 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 465, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
January 27, 2014, at page 1854.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek 
recognition?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to 
the conference report?
  Mr. PETERSON. No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this has been a long and seemingly epic 
journey that the House Agriculture Committee has been upon, and Mr. 
Peterson, myself, our colleagues, literally 3 years, actually 4, when 
you consider the beginning hearings under then-Chairman Peterson to 
start this process.
  We have all discussed the details. We will discuss the details more 
in greater length in just a moment on this final conference report that 
reflects the net result of both the Senate and House work.
  But I would say this. Whatever your feelings might be about the 
policy issues involved within the bill, understand, this formal 
conference that has now come to a conclusion, soon, I hope, to be 
ratified by the body, reflects at the committee level, at the floor 
level in the House, and, I think, in the conference level, how 
legislation should be put together.
  Many people criticize us and this body as dysfunctional. But if they 
look at all of the amendments we considered, every time we took the 
farm bill up in the committee, all of the debate, all of the 
discussion, if they consider the amazing amount of amendments we 
considered on the floor of the United States House and all the debates 
and the discussion and the votes, if they take note of how long and how 
much effort the principals and the conferees put into putting this 
conference report together, they would understand that this bill, while 
everyone may not agree with every line, every word, every policy in it, 
this bill reflects, unlike almost any that have been done for years, 
how it should be done--good men and women of different opinions working 
to get to a final product.
  I hope this reflects a change in how we will do our business here 
across the board. I am proud of what we have done, and I am proud of 
how we have done it. I am proud of the reforms and savings. I am proud 
of my ranking member, and all my colleagues who have been involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, as the chairman said, after nearly 4 years of work, the House 
is finally considering the 2014 farm bill conference report. It has 
been a challenging and, at times, frustrating process, I think 
everybody will agree, but through it, the Ag Committee has persevered, 
and we did what we have always done. We worked together.
  The report before us today represents a compromise. I know this is 
rare in Washington, but that is what is needed to actually get 
something done around this place. I didn't get everything I wanted. The 
chairman didn't get everything he wanted. That is how the compromise 
works.
  For example, there has been a lot of discussion about dairy, but we 
are moving away from the old dairy program to a new program that I 
think is much more sensible, that has market signals in it to deal with 
overproduction. The only question I have is whether they are going to 
be strong enough. We will find out as we go through the process.
  In the commodity title, I am still disappointed we didn't vote on 
planted acres. I think that would have been a smart thing to do, but it 
wasn't to be.
  At the end of the day, I believe my reservations are outweighed by 
the need to provide a long-term certainty for agriculture and nutrition 
programs and the many positive improvements and reforms included in the 
final bill.
  Among other things, the conference report will protect and improve 
the crop insurance system. That is probably the most important safety 
net. It continues current sugar policy, streamlines conservation 
programs so that we can continue to preserve our natural resources, 
provides disaster assistance for livestock producers, applies 
conservation protections to crop insurance, and recognizes the growing 
consumer demand for fresh fruits, vegetables, local foods and organics.
  In closing, I want to thank the chairman for his work and 
congratulate him for working with us to get to a final conclusion here. 
Also, for his Members, our Members, for their support and hanging in 
there to get to this point.
  I also want to thank the Agriculture Committee staff who have been 
working so hard over these last years, night and day, through all these 
different situations we have been in, and I will submit their names for 
the Record.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this process has gone on too long. We need to 
conclude it today. I urge my colleagues to support the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                            committee staff

       Agriculture Committee Democratic Staff: Andy Baker, Nathan 
     Fretz, Liz Friedlander, Keith Jones, Mary Knigge, Rob Larew, 
     Clark Ogilvie, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, Faye Smith; USDA 
     Detailee: Robert Stephenson; Intern: Lauren Becker.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member 
Peterson for all their hard work on this very difficult bill. I admire 
their tenacity, and I admire their passion on issues dealing with 
agriculture.
  There are some good things in this bill, to be sure, but there are 
some

[[Page 2163]]

things that I simply cannot accept. I think as we discuss this farm 
bill, that we should remind ourselves of a few simple facts, facts like 
this:
  Hunger exists in the United States of America. Not a single 
congressional district in this country is hunger-free. Our food banks, 
our food pantries, the people who are on the front lines in the fight 
against hunger simply cannot do any more. They are stretched to the 
limit.
  One final fact. This bill will make hunger worse in America, not 
better. If this bill passes, thousands and thousands of low-income 
Americans will see their already meager food benefit shrink.
  And for what? Why? To meet some arbitrary deficit reduction goal? To 
pay the costs of the giveaways and the crop insurance program? To pay 
for the sweetheart deals for the sushi rice growers and the peanut 
farmers and God knows who else?
  I know many of my colleagues would just like this whole farm bill 
issue to go away. They want to pass a bill and forget about it and move 
on to something else.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the people who will be hurt by this bill aren't 
going away. They can't forget about it and move on to something else 
because they will suffer. They will have to make do with less food 
tomorrow than they have today.
  I have heard all the arguments trying to justify this $8.6 billion 
cut in SNAP. Well, it is just a loophole, or it could have been a lot 
worse, or the States should pick up the slack, or local governments or 
churches or food banks or the tooth fairy.
  Those arguments are easy to make from the comfort of our warm homes 
and our full bellies, but they ring hollow to an elderly person who 
will have to take their medicine on an empty stomach, or a child who 
will have to skip a breakfast before going to school.
  I think it is wrong, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my outstanding subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking 
Member Peterson for putting in so much hard work and dedication and 
getting where we are today, and I echo the ranking member's sentiments 
to the staff. Thank you very much for everything that you have done.
  After more than 3 years of being involved in the farm bill process, I 
am proud to support a final product that not only greatly benefits 
producers but deploys investments and jobs to rural America. Despite 
our sharp regional differences, we prevailed in crafting commodity 
programs that promote regional fairness by providing a strong safety 
net that protects all producers from market risk.
  We can finally provide relief to our cattlemen by permanently 
reauthorizing disaster assistance programs after years of hardship. 
Rural development funding will bring critical investments to our rural 
communities, while conservation and forestry programs will preserve our 
natural resources for years to come.
  While I am pleased with the farm bill before us today, I am 
disappointed that we left some important issues on the table like 
reforming harmful GIPSA regulations and fixing Country of Origin 
Labeling for the meat industry.
  We could have gone further in relieving burdensome EPA regulations on 
small farmers, and I believe that the environmental activists in the 
Senate had far too much input.
  Even though I believe we could have done more, I am proud of the 
conservative reforms we made to the food stamp program by eliminating 
waste and loopholes, setting the stage for work requirements. The 
Agriculture Committee accomplished the tough goal of cutting billions 
from our budget by repealing or consolidating dozens of programs.
  I appreciate the patience of all of our Arkansas producers and rural 
communities through this process.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this farm bill conference report.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
committee report. There are a lot of reasons why, but first I would 
like to commend the chairman and the ranking members of both the House 
and the Senate Ag Committees and my fellow conferees and the staff for 
all the hard work that went into reaching this agreement.
  While this is not a perfect bill--there never is--this agreement is 
the result of more than 4 years of bipartisan negotiations, two 
marathon committee meeting markups, multiple floor debates. As a matter 
of fact, this bill almost reminds me of the movie ``Groundhog Day'' 
because it seems to come back again and again.
  For my home State of California, the leading agricultural State in 
the Nation, this farm bill is a dramatic investment in many of the 
specialty crops for research, for market production and the development 
programs which benefit our vegetable and fruit producers, which produce 
over half the Nation's supply.
  These programs not only help my constituents produce the safest and 
most nutritious fruits and vegetables that we eat throughout the 
Nation, but also throughout the world.
  Just as important for my district are the disaster relief programs 
that help farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and producers through these 
difficult times. Many may not be aware, but California is facing the 
driest year on record, which jeopardizes both food production and jobs 
in my district.
  This bill contains programs that provide help when disaster strikes, 
from drilling wells to providing seed or direct assistance to growers 
or cattlemen who have been hurt by this devastating drought.
  While I support the conference committee report, I am disappointed 
that we did not take the opportunity to resolve the meat labeling 
issues that threaten our beef and poultry producers, and our important 
trading partners, Canada and Mexico, who are deemed critical and are 
dealing with us in the World Trade Organization. I have currently 
drafted legislation on a bipartisan basis to try to fix this labeling 
issue once and for all.
  This debate, though, has dragged on for way too long. Let's give 
farmers and ranchers and dairy producers the certainty that they 
deserve through a 5-year farm bill. Now is the time to get this farm 
bill done by passing this conference committee report.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time and for the leadership that he 
has shown on the nutrition title and for the plight of hunger 
throughout our country. It is commendable.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a few farm bills in the past. I 
used to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. I certainly 
appreciate how very difficult it is to put together a bipartisan farm 
bill with so many different moving parts.
  I have all the respect and admiration for the leadership on the 
committee, but I also sense that we have reached a point of fatigue and 
exhaustion. People just want this farm bill to go away after years of 
it being worked on, and I appreciate that, too.
  But we are only given one opportunity every 5 or, in this case, 7 
years to reform farm policy to make it better, to make it better for 
our family farmers, to make it more responsible for the American 
taxpayer, to make production agriculture work for all Americans, and I 
am afraid that this farm bill, yet again, pulls up short.
  I would beseech my colleagues to take a little additional time to 
work on reform measures that do make sense. Rather than looking at 
another $8.6 billion in cuts to the nutrition title on top of previous 
cuts that have already been had, let's look at some of these subsidy 
programs.
  I am afraid that the bill before us today maintains huge taxpayer 
subsidies that go to a few but very large

[[Page 2164]]

agribusinesses at the expense of our family farmers around the country. 
It is going to lead to greater consolidation and production 
agriculture. It is going to continue to drive up land values. It is 
going to make it harder for new beginning farmers to enter the 
occupation. It is not responsible to these family farmers, and it is 
certainly not responsible to the American taxpayer.
  We have got historically high commodity target prices in this bill so 
any slight dip is going to mean huge payments going out in the future. 
We have got the multiple entity rule now that we worked on in the 
previous farm bill being rolled back in this one. We have got payment 
limitation caps now being increased rather than brought down to where 
the will of this Congress was last year when we had that debate on the 
floor.
  And while it is commendable that we are getting rid of the direct 
payment program, which was not justifiable, most of that money is being 
shifted now into the crop insurance program which, what I feel, is 
overly generous premium subsidy crop insurance subsidies to producers, 
which has the potential of taking further risk out of production 
decisions.
  But we are also telling private crop insurance companies, We are 
going to guarantee you a 14 percent profit margin. We are going to pay 
your entire administrative and operating expenses. And, by the way, you 
are going to bear very little risk in offering these policies. The 
American taxpayer will still bear that risk. There is not a business in 
the world that wouldn't sign up for that offer. So why are we doing 
that in this farm bill?
  Representative Petri and I last year offered a commonsense modicum 
reform of the crop insurance program, asking these crop insurance 
companies to put a little more skin in the game. We understand it is a 
valuable risk management tool that needs to be there for producers, but 
this goes overboard with it.
  Then finally, we have got a domestic cotton program that has gotten 
us into trouble with Brazil. If the average taxpayer knew that we, for 
the last 4 years, have funneled out $150 million worth of taxpayer 
subsidies going to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers they would be 
livid. And yet this bill does not fix that cotton problem, and now it 
is up to Brazil whether they want to level economic sanctions against 
us.
  More work needs to happen, and, unfortunately, this bill pulls up 
short.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), one of our hardest working 
subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the farm bill. 
This legislation provides much-needed reforms. It is fiscally 
responsible, saving billions in mandatory spending, promoting market-
based solutions, and streamlining and consolidating more than 100 
programs.
  We have eliminated direct payments, which farmers received whether 
there were good times or bad, and replaced them with a safety net that 
provides help only when farmers need it.
  The bill includes the most significant reform to the food stamp 
program since welfare was reformed in 1996.
  While I am personally disappointed that we didn't fix the COOL and 
GIPSA issues--and I am committed to continuing to work on those--I do 
believe that this bill provides a balance of opportunity and security, 
and it strengthens our Nation's agriculture safety net for years to 
come.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the safety net, vote 
``yes'' for these modest reforms to food stamps, pass this conference 
report. Give our farmers and ranchers across this country the 5 years 
of stability and security they need to execute their business plans to 
allow them to continue to provide the American people with the most 
affordable and abundant food and fiber supply in the developing world.
  Vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I guess for some people, you just can't do 
enough. I would argue, respectfully, to a lot of my colleagues that the 
work that has gone on on both sides of the aisle over the last 2 years 
is actually pretty exemplary.
  The farm bill is always a difficult bill to pass. I believe the last 
one was vetoed a couple of times, and it had to be overwritten.
  This bill, we are not at that point. But we have had a lot of bumps 
along the road, and it could be better. It could be better. But I have 
never yet seen legislation as exactly what I would preferably like to 
be voting on at the end of the day.
  We make huge strides in this bill. There were draconian cuts to the 
SNAP and food stamp program that are no longer in here. There were 
onerous requirements and incentives to get people off food stamps that 
are no longer in here.
  And for those that say people are automatically going to be cut as a 
result of this, that is not accurate. If the States step up and 
actually put $20 towards the heating assistance for these low-income 
folks that hopefully need that, they don't get a reduced benefit. And, 
yes, it is a reduced benefit. They still qualify for their base benefit 
in this bill. Moreover, if they just bring their heating and cooling 
bills in, they can still get the expanded benefit; it just requires a 
little more diligence. Hopefully, it puts some faith in America that 
their food stamp and SNAP programs are going to those who really need 
it.
  As far as the subsidies go--hey, maybe we should change that; we 
should work on that some more. There will be another farm bill in 4 or 
5 years. But we have made huge strides. We get rid of the direct 
payments program. That is monumental, folks. We have been trying to do 
that for 20 years.
  The subsidies, the milk program, it is a totally new one. We are on a 
marginal insurance program. I think America understands that type of 
thing.
  We have made huge strides here, and there are so many good things. 
For some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I mean, 
at the end of the day, it is pretty imperative that we have made huge 
strides in the specialty crop provisions, the organic provisions. We 
have done great with market access promotion programs. We have made it 
so that American farmers continue to produce the best food and fiber 
with a safety net that makes sure that the people in this country get 
the food they need and deserve and can do the best economically on the 
global trade scene.
  I think this is a great opportunity. People here should be voting 
``yes'' on this bill after all the hard bipartisan work.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I deeply respect my friend and 
colleague from Oregon, I have a slightly different perspective on this 
because I think the bill that is before us today is absolutely the 
least that could be done to get the bill passed. It has a number of 
items I do support, like specialty crops, which I have been working on 
for some time. I am pleased that organics have an opportunity to get to 
crop insurance.
  But this bill, as I say, takes, allegedly, the savings from direct 
payments that have been opposed for years and plows them back into an 
enriched crop insurance program. It cuts $6 billion for conservation. 
Yes, there are some improvements in terms of administration, but at the 
end of the day, it cuts $6 billion when land and water is under 
pressure and needs it the most. This is shortsighted.
  It is very likely going to cost a lot more in the long run for the 
reasons my friend from Wisconsin pointed out in terms of setting these 
targets higher. It is more generous in terms of rejecting a provision 
that was included in both the House and the Senate version to limit 
payments to individual farms to $50,000. The conference committee 
increases the limit to $125,000 and reopens a loophole closed in both 
the House and Senate bills, allowing the payments to be collected by 
multiple people.
  It is just one more example of where the conference committee that I 
think

[[Page 2165]]

had one meeting and sort of massaged these things to put the pieces 
together to secure a majority on the floor, is not, in any stretch of 
the imagination, in the best interests of most farmers, certainly not 
for the environment, and nor is it for the American taxpayers.
  I respectfully urge its rejection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack) who has been very focused on these critical 
issues, especially those involving livestock.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to offer my 
congratulations to the chairman, to his ranking member, and to my 
colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of the committee members, 
for their diligent work and for coming up with this committee report. 
This was not easy, to say the least.
  That said, Mr. Speaker, because of the Senate's ``my way or the 
highway'' attitude, we are considering a conference report that does 
nothing to address an out-of-control agency, GIPSA, from imposing on 
American companies regulations that go well beyond congressional 
intent. Because of the Senate's all-or-nothing approach, we are 
considering a conference report that will subject American industries 
and companies to retaliatory tariffs.
  For me, it would be easy to vote against this conference report. But 
unlike my Senate counterparts, I recognize that, in a divided 
government, each side must work to find common ground. Ultimately, this 
report, like many of the other bipartisan agreements that have been 
signed into law, moves the ball forward by making much-needed reforms 
to Federal programs and reducing spending. That is why, in the end, I 
will support it.
  I am hopeful, however, Mr. Speaker, that the House Appropriations 
Committee will do everything in its power to fix some of these 
mistakes. I, as a member of that committee, will fight to rein in 
GIPSA, and I will work to fix the Country of Origin Labeling 
requirements.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Democratic Leader 
Pelosi for her confidence in me in appointing me as her representative 
to the farm bill committee.
  I thank Representatives Peterson and Lucas and Senators Stabenow and 
Cochran for their leadership in negotiating this conference report.
  Throughout this process, it was my goal to ensure a fair and balanced 
farm bill. While I do not agree with some of the provisions of this 
conference bill, I firmly believe it is a good compromise.
  Given how far apart we were when this conference began, I am pleased 
Members on both sides of the aisle and across the Chamber were able to 
reach a consensus and show the American people Congress can work 
together.
  The agreement rejects categorical eligibility, something that we have 
talked about for some time. The $8.6 billion savings in SNAP over 10 
years--over 10 years--comes from a change in LIHEAP policy that would 
shrink benefits for approximately 850,000 households in 16 States. It 
does not eliminate a qualified household from access to SNAP, which was 
an important consideration on the difficult road to reach a compromise 
that prevents devastating cuts and changes to this critically needed 
program.
  This agreement also expands economic investment in low-income, urban, 
and rural communities. It provides certainty and sound agricultural 
policies for America's farmers and ranchers.
  Passing the farm bill has always been a bipartisan endeavor, and this 
conference committee report proves it is still possible for Congress to 
work through its differences and produce a balanced bill that meets the 
needs of the American people.
  We have negotiated the farm bill for the last 2 years. It is now time 
to move forward. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me and vote 
``yes'' on this bipartisan, bicameral conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 
2014 Farm Bill is truly a compromise. It's not the bill I would write 
on my own. It fails to adequately tackle the hunger and poverty that 
stalks our country from inner cities to rural towns and suburbs across 
America. However, it is a genuine compromise and represents important 
improvements to our federal nutrition programs. We have kept SNAP 
intact and rejected every one of the harsh House provisions that would 
have ended food assistance to nearly 4 million people.
  I am still deeply disappointed we were not able to make new 
investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in my district and 
around this country put food on the table. Millions remain unemployed 
and unable to provide for their families, and others who work in low-
wage jobs or live on retirement income rely on SNAP to afford barely 
enough food.
  Despite this, I believe this legislation will strengthen and improve 
SNAP and the many other nutrition programs authorized under the Farm 
Bill. SNAP has been vital in assisting millions of families and 
countless communities cope with the Great Recession. Not only has the 
program responded quickly to increased needs, but it has also delivered 
benefits with ever-increased accuracy despite higher caseloads and 
strained State administrative budgets. While we look forward to a 
strengthening economy, which provides more jobs, we expect a strong 
SNAP will remain critically needed.
  This bill reauthorizes the program and makes some modest 
improvements. Despite expanding to respond to the increased need 
arising from the Great Recession, SNAP maintained historically low 
payment error and trafficking rates. The farm bill tightens eligibility 
in response to concerns about the way some States calculate benefits 
and media reports of unusual circumstances involving SNAP recipients, 
invests in fraud detection and prevention activities, improves retailer 
operations, and makes a number of small but important program changes.
  I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the key 
provisions of the nutrition title. First, I want to address the one 
significant cut in SNAP benefits that is included in the title. We have 
curtailed a practice that about a third of the States use to raise SNAP 
benefits for some families and simplify administration of the program. 
CBO says that about 850,000 families in those States will lose about 
$90 a month because of the cut. Though a painful loss for these 
families, the change fixes an oversight in the SNAP benefit calculation 
that has allowed some States to let households deduct more income than 
warranted by their actual expenses. They do this by giving SNAP 
households with no heating or cooling expenses a token LIHEAP payment 
of $1 or less in order to leverage a heating and cooling deduction, 
which raises their SNAP benefits. For decades, the receipt of LIHEAP 
has automatically qualified households for a standard utility allowance 
within the shelter deduction calculation. This is the right thing to do 
when the LIHEAP program already has determined that the household pays 
heating or cooling bills. But these States with very small LIHEAP 
payments have allowed some of these families to receive larger benefits 
than their circumstances warrant under the SNAP formula.
  Congress, however, did not intend to give households without heating 
or cooling expenses a deduction for such expenses. While I would 
strongly prefer to reinvest all of the savings from ending this 
practice back into meeting the needs of struggling households, it is 
reasonable to address this issue. This bill does so by requiring that a 
LIHEAP payment must be at least $20 for the State to use the LIHEAP 
connection to confer the SUA.
  This change will lower SNAP benefits to 850,000 low-income households 
by $8.55 billion over ten years. This will not be an easy adjustment 
for these households, but it will establish a stronger and more 
credible link between the traditional LIHEAP program and SNAP benefits. 
As a conferee, it was very important for us that the people who really 
deserve to deduct heating or cooling costs have a chance to do so, and 
the change we are making to fix a narrow problem not disrupt the 
original purpose of the LIHEAP linkage in promoting efficiency and 
ensuring households get all the benefits for which they qualify.
  This is why we gave the Secretary some flexibility here. I expect 
that the Department will work closely with State agencies to ensure 
households that now receive the SUA on the basis of a negligible LIHEAP 
payment will have the opportunity to clarify they actually do pay for 
heating or cooling, and this process will not be burdensome. Some 
States have targeted these small LIHEAP payments to households in 
public housing that are highly unlikely to incur a separate charge for 
home heating or cooling. But other States have given a one dollar 
payment to most, if not all SNAP households. We know that a large 
proportion of these households actually do pay a

[[Page 2166]]

separate charge for utilities and need the SUA to get an adequate level 
of benefits.
  I also want to make clear this change is designed to affect only 
households in the 16 States that have provided a nominal LIHEAP benefit 
for purposes of qualifying households for a larger deduction. We got 
assurances from USDA that in the States that do not use the current 
rule in this way, SNAP participants would neither experience a cut in 
benefits, nor would there be a change in the way their income, shelter 
deduction, and benefits are calculated. This is an important 
implementation issue. States that, like my own State of Ohio and the 
majority of all States, do not provide a nominal LIHEAP benefit should 
be able to continue the way they determine eligibility for the SUA. Nor 
should low-income Ohioans be asked to do or verify anything differently 
from what they do now. None of the savings in the bill comes from 
reducing benefits for households that have LIHEAP payments that exceed 
the new $20 threshold, so USDA must ensure State implementation of the 
changes does not result in a benefit loss to a household legitimately 
receiving LIHEAP.
  Finally, I am concerned we may not have given States enough time to 
make the change and protect households. States will have flexibility in 
phasing in the provision for most participating households, but for new 
applicants and households who need to reapply for SNAP in the coming 
months, the provision is effective just 30 days after enactment, which 
is a very quick time-frame for States to implement. Under SNAP 
regulations, States will be protected from being cited for errors 
during the first few months after enactment. I urge States and USDA to 
not hold households accountable for receiving slightly higher benefits 
because the short implementation timeframe has not given their State 
ample opportunity to adjust their benefits properly. I'm proud of what 
we have been able to accomplish as conferees to improve the program 
without unduly burdening the struggling families that turn to SNAP in 
times of need. We focused our reforms on the administration of SNAP, 
and I'd like to highlight some of the areas where we tightened 
eligibility to respond to some uncommon cases.
  Over the last several years, there have been two reported instances 
of SNAP participants winning the lottery and remaining on the program. 
While a rare occurrence, and one that in many States already results in 
disqualification, we included a provision to make sure it does not 
happen again. We're focused on people winning a million dollars or some 
other life-changing amount, not someone who nets a few hundred dollars 
in scratch-off tickets that could very quickly be spent by paying 
overdue bills or paying for overdue auto or home maintenance. In 
implementing this provision, the Department should consider 
``substantial'' to be truly extraordinary windfalls that will change 
lifestyles rather than provide more modest gains. Another key 
implementation issue is how the State discovers such winnings. Rather 
than clog application and report forms with questions that will apply 
to a negligible number of people, the bill requires State SNAP agencies 
to establish relationships with any in-State gaming commissions, so 
that the commissions will report any winnings that meet the threshold 
USDA will establish. The State agency will apply the regular income and 
asset tests to these households and the households will remain 
ineligible until they meet these tests. We do not see any need for any 
additional reporting by applicants or households, as the State-level 
reporting should be accurate and sufficient.
  The farm bill also clarifies rules around eligibility for felons. 
People with criminal records fleeing from law enforcement and violating 
their parole are not eligible for SNAP. The farm bill reiterates people 
convicted of certain felonies such as murder and armed robbery who 
violate their parole or probation are ineligible for benefits. And it 
imposes a hard penalty on the families of those who do not comply--the 
household of the ex-offender will see a significant drop in benefits 
because the income and resources of the non-eligible member would still 
be counted. While harsh to innocent family members who may have helped 
their family member rehabilitate successfully by providing a place to 
live, it represents no change in the law and is the way other 
offenders, such as drug felons and those intentionally violating SNAP 
rules are treated now. Ex-offenders who have served their time and 
continue to comply with the conditions placed on their release, and who 
are otherwise eligible for food assistance through SNAP, will be able 
to apply for and receive assistance. Program participants should not 
experience any change from our desire to reiterate current policy with 
respect to fleeing felons. The SNAP eligibility and enrollment process 
already solicits information from applicants about their fleeing felon 
status and we anticipate those efforts will be not be disrupted or 
changed as a result of this re-articulation of current rules.
  Another area where the conferees worked hard to make improvements is 
in the area of program integrity and fraud prevention.
  The bill contains an important program integrity enhancement for 
multiple requests for EBT card replacements. Participants can lose 
cards. The cards may also be stolen or malfunction. Without a working 
card, households can't buy food. We've become aware of a very small 
number of households with more frequent requests for card replacement 
and this raises program integrity issues. The bill requires USDA to set 
a standard for excessive requests for card replacement and requires 
States to seek explanations from households that exceed this threshold 
as to why another card is needed prior to re-issuing a card. Similarly, 
States may not require households to provide their explanation in 
person or withhold the card based on the household's explanation. That 
requires following the procedures for an intentional program violation. 
Because of the critical importance of maintaining access to food 
assistance, the bill requires that States promptly give individuals a 
chance to explain. We expect USDA to monitor this closely; any delay in 
working with the household is a day they do not have benefits to 
purchase food.
  There are many reasons why replacement cards are legitimately and 
urgently needed--people may not understand the card was reusable, they 
may confuse a PIN problem with a card problem, they may be victims of 
theft, or they may simply lose their card. These things can happen to 
anyone, but some people are particularly vulnerable. Accordingly, this 
bill requires protections for vulnerable populations such as persons 
with disabilities, homeless persons, and crime victims.
  This provision does not empower States to use this process to 
terminate participation or impose undue new burdens on households. SNAP 
rules set out procedural standards for acting on evidence of 
intentional program violations--standards that balance the pursuit of 
program integrity with fundamental legal rights of accused persons. If 
a State believes its evidence indicates an intentional program 
violation in this area, it must replace the card and use its 
disqualification process to take any further action.
  We've provided additional resources to USDA to improve integrity 
efforts. We applaud USDA's strong commitment to rooting out fraud in 
the program, but with a significant increase in the number of stores 
accepting SNAP, USDA must continue to improve its retailer monitoring 
efforts. This bill gives the Department additional resources to improve 
its technology to take advantage of innovations like data mining, which 
can reveal retailer redemption patterns and help identify stores that 
may be abusing the program. We expect USDA to focus on data analysis 
and other smart tools to maintain the high standards of compliance in 
the program. Again, this is an example of the conferees focusing on the 
improving the administrative side of the program, rather than placing 
onerous burdens, like photo identification requirements, on retailers 
or participants.
  We've also provided funds to encourage State and federal partnerships 
to address retailer fraud through pilot projects. States selected for 
the pilot need to show they have committed resources to recipient 
trafficking and have a proven record of accurate determinations of 
fraud. In other words, States that have been successful in identifying 
and reducing documented fraud should be given a priority in partnering 
with USDA on retailer fraud.
  There has been a lot of attention given to the relationship between 
SNAP and work. We know many households on SNAP have a working member 
and some States operate promising employment and training programs. 
Earlier versions of the farm bill in each house had widely differing 
approaches to the issue of work and, as a conferee, I'm proud we worked 
diligently to find areas of agreement and come up with some important 
reforms in the program without cutting people off for failure to find a 
job or imposing some other hardship on households.
  While the majority of SNAP participants who can work are working, we 
want to do what we can to help those who are able to work but cannot 
find a job. SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) has allowed States to 
provide services to adults facing the three month time limit as well as 
individuals seeking to improve their employability, but it is time to 
evaluate what really works and encourage States to build upon 
successes.
  So we have improved and increased funding for SNAP E&T. The bill 
provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative and promising 
State employment and training programs.

[[Page 2167]]

These pilots can be drawn from SNAP E&T components, but can also 
include efforts to help those who already are working by providing the 
kinds of supportive services, like child care or transportation 
assistance, that often are insurmountable expenses to those with low-
paying jobs. The conferees expect that States will expand their SNAP 
E&T activities or test new ideas, not use the funds to fund what they 
already are doing, or remove State dollars from their SNAP E&T 
programs.
  Over time, SNAP E&T has served 3 different goals: a test of the 
willingness of the able-bodied to perform work activities as a 
condition of assistance, a means for some childless adults to exceed 
the 3-month time limit via workfare, and a way to enhance the 
employment prospects of SNAP recipients by improving their skills and 
abilities. Pilots will test approaches to meeting each of these goals 
and provide us with crucial information about the most effective 
approaches.
  As conferees we thought a rigorous evaluation is a critical component 
of the pilot projects. With so many SNAP recipients who find jobs on 
their own, a key question is how do we know if the program and services 
the State offered made a difference. States that cannot guarantee they 
will participate fully in the evaluation and provide the necessary data 
for the evaluation should not be selected to participate. To ensure we 
learn something, we also have made the new money we provide available 
to the evaluation and for the State and federal costs of running the 
pilot. I am especially interested in learning about the most effective 
ways for States to assess the needs of SNAP participants upfront and to 
match those needs to the right education and training programs and 
other supportive services that will make a difference for that 
individual. This is information we do not have now and could help 
States to target limited resources to really make a difference in 
peoples' lives.
  Finally, I applaud the conference committee leadership for designing 
a pilot project that gives States resources without creating punitive 
incentives to force people who cannot find work off the program. I 
know, however, some States may choose more punitive approaches under a 
theory that exposing a family to the possibility of losing their 
benefits will spur additional work effort. I do not support this view, 
but States are allowed under the pilots to sanction individuals who 
fail to comply with any work requirements under the same rules and 
terms as under the current SNAP E&T program. In addition, because we 
have added unsubsidized work as an allowable activity under the pilot, 
we have asked the Secretary to issue guidance about the very limited 
circumstances under which a person who is working could be sanctioned 
for losing his or her job. The last thing we intend is for people who 
are already doing what we want--that is, working--to face losing some 
or all of their SNAP benefits because they lose that job.
  Beyond the pilot projects, we are very interested in learning what 
works in all States in getting SNAP participants the skills and 
training they need to get and keep a well-paying job. That's why we 
will require States to report on the results of their E&T efforts. USDA 
is charged to use this new information to look at how this program can 
achieve more lasting gains in self-sufficiency. The conferees also 
recognize SNAP participants are among the poorest and least skilled 
members of society. We do not expect it will be easy for all of them to 
quickly find employment, especially in the aftermath of the recession. 
We expect a study would consider some interventions--such as career and 
technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains over the long 
haul, but participants would not immediately find those jobs because 
they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To that end, 
USDA's study needs to recognize getting better jobs may require getting 
more training, so delayed, but enduring improvements, are important.
  I've been focused on changes to the program that affect participants. 
But SNAP is a program that helps both hungry households and the food 
industry. This farm bill continues to modernize the program, with a 
number of improvements for retailers.
  One thing we were able to do is take important steps to ensure SNAP 
remains compatible with the evolving food retail landscape. To this 
end, we authorize the Secretary to test the use of mobile technologies 
in SNAP--things like smart phone apps that have become increasingly 
common in the larger retail world. This may be especially important to 
farmers markets and vegetable stands that are unable to install 
traditional EBT-processing machines. But allowing additional ways to 
accept benefits must not come at the expense of program integrity. We 
all share a deep commitment to ensuring only authorized retailers 
participate in the program and sufficient protections are in place to 
prevent trafficking. This provision reflects that priority. For 
example, we start with a pilot project to test the idea of using mobile 
technology, include protections for recipients, and prohibit any food 
price markups. We expect USDA to take ironclad measures to prevent 
fraud and require a report on the feasibility of the technology before 
allowing it to be used more widely than the pilot. USDA is to be 
commended for the good work it has done in reducing fraud in the 
program, and we expect the same attention to program integrity to be 
employed in testing new technologies before embracing them in SNAP.
  This bill also allows pilot projects to test the feasibility of 
allowing the online purchase of food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a 
growing food industry trend toward online transactions with delivery. 
While allowing the ordering and purchase of food online is one way to 
make the program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting 
to a store that can redeem benefits, again we worked hard to ensure the 
high program integrity standards apply to any new way of redeeming 
benefits. We expect USDA to aggressively address fraud for the same 
reasons set out above and require, in the bill, the agency halt any 
expansion of online transactions if integrity issues cannot be 
resolved. While the provision makes clear that delivery fees associated 
with online purchases may not be paid with SNAP benefits, I also expect 
USDA to set standards for the fees to ensure no adverse effect on food 
security. After all, low-income households rely on SNAP because they 
are unable to purchase enough food--to divert other scarce financial 
resources to pay delivery fees undermines the accessibility offered by 
the online option.
  I would like to point out these new mobile and online technologies, 
common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo identification or 
other biometric information to authorize payments and maintain 
integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP retail 
transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. Thus, I 
urge USDA to stop approving misguided efforts at the State level to 
require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of 
purchase. Technology has made these conditions on the use of benefits 
obsolete in the retail environment, and so they should be eliminated 
from the SNAP retail environment as well.
  Benefits have been issued successfully on electronic cards for years, 
but there have been rare occasions when the cards, or the processing 
systems that deduct benefits from the cards, fail to operate. In these 
cases, program participants may be in even greater need of assistance 
and must be able to use their benefits to purchase food. This requires 
the capacity to quickly and efficiently issue manual vouchers to 
affected individuals. We expect USDA to issue rules that make it quick 
and easy to switch to manual vouchers for automated systems failures or 
natural disasters. Critical to successfully providing an alternative is 
establishing clear criteria that allow State officials to apply 
immediately in a variety of particular situations. The threat to 
program integrity posed by physical vouchers stems from vouchers issued 
when individual cards fail to work, not when there is an intelligible, 
systemic reason for the problem.
  I commend my fellow conferees for working in a bipartisan way to 
identify areas of the program that could be strengthened in a way that 
minimizes administrative burden and does not impose a hardship on 
participating households. We've made some changes that will improve 
eligibility determinations and the quality of our research.
  For example, we've taken steps to ensure federal funds used to inform 
Americans about SNAP cannot be used in inappropriate ways. Let's be 
clear, USDA has done a fine and necessary job getting information about 
SNAP to low-income households struggling to put food on the table. The 
program cannot be effective if those who may need it are unaware of its 
existence or believe they are not eligible. With the program's name 
change from the Food Stamp Program to SNAP, there was a great need for 
accurate information to be disseminated. Almost all of USDA's efforts 
have been appreciated and appropriate, but there have been reports of 
some ill-advised efforts, such as collaborating with the Mexican 
consulate and reimbursing community members who sign up eligible people 
on a per person or ``bounty'' basis. These were neither best practices, 
nor were they widespread, so we prohibited them in the farm bill. But 
in reality, many low-income households that are eligible are not 
signing up, and we know that is because, in part, individuals are 
unaware of the program or have misconceptions about it. For example, 
seniors often fear if they apply for assistance, they are taking away 
assistance from someone else. But that is just not true,

[[Page 2168]]

and we need to be able to give these seniors truthful information so 
they can make the choice that is right for them. In this bill, Congress 
continues to support this kind of information sharing, while clarifying 
aggressive recruitment, including recruitment outside of the United 
States, is not permissible. Recruitment is trying to persuade or 
convince someone who has made an informed decision not to apply to 
change his or her mind. That hasn't been a permissible activity and the 
bill simply codifies that practice. Providing people with positive 
information about the program and the benefits of applying or assisting 
them to navigate the complicated application process is not recruitment 
and is still allowed. We expect the agency will continue to provide 
necessary information while ensuring education funds are used 
appropriately.
  Another change we made to strengthen SNAP was to give States access 
to more tools to double check the information SNAP applicants provide. 
The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Support 
Enforcement oversees such a tool: the National Directory of New Hires 
(NDNH), which primarily is for State child support agencies to learn 
important information about the employment of noncustodial parents who 
live or work in other States. Currently States are allowed to use this 
database for some other purposes, including verifying employment and 
earnings of SNAP recipients. We have, in this bill, required States 
make use of the data available through the NDNH at the time a household 
is certified for SNAP, to help the State determine eligibility and the 
correct level of benefits for households applying for SNAP. We expect 
the Secretary to issue guidance to help States determine the most cost-
effective and efficient ways to make use of this data source. For 
example, it makes no sense for States to pay to match every individual 
in every applicant household. There is no reasonable chance an 80 year-
old disabled person or a four year old child has unreported earnings. 
The Secretary should work with the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to explore ways to limit the cost of the match to State 
agencies and maximize payment accuracy.
  The bill also codifies the existing State practice of verifying 
immigrant participation in the program by using the federal Systemic 
Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE). It's a commonsense 
way for States to determine eligibility that does not require a 
household to track down paperwork or fill out unnecessary forms. We 
expect this to have no impact on client eligibility or responsibility 
since the data match is an administrative procedure. No other changes 
to immigrant eligibility have been made.
  We fully expect State and local agencies, institutions and 
organizations that receive funding through USDA to study, evaluate or 
otherwise engage with SNAP will cooperate with USDA's own researchers. 
Some of these entities may have justifiable concerns in this day and 
age about sharing some data, especially private information about 
participant households. This bill includes a provision that explicitly 
requires cooperation, but ensures that it does not violate any 
important existing requirements, such as the personal privacy of SNAP 
participants.
  I'd like to turn for a moment to other nutrition provisions in the 
bill.
  Since 2001, Puerto Rico has been allowed to issue to 25 percent of 
households' SNAP benefit as cash, rather than in a form that can only 
be spent on food. While program rules require the cash also be spent 
for food, some cash is spent on other household necessities, though 
there is little evidence that any cash is spent on non-essential items. 
This is because the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) plays a unique 
role in Puerto Rico's safety net because other programs available in 
States (such as TANF and SSI) do not play a significant role on the 
island. Puerto Rico is already shortchanged on nutrition assistance--if 
NAP operated as SNAP does in the States, participation would be 15 
percent higher and federal costs would be over 22 percent higher. Some 
have argued this cash allotment should be eliminated, a change that 
would be disruptive, and over which there has been little engagement 
with local stakeholders or affected parties. So the farm bill requires 
a study on the impact of eliminating the cash portion of the nutrition 
grant, and assuming such a change is feasible, gradually phases it out. 
But, we included an important protection for poor Puerto Ricans. The 
Secretary can exempt categories of participants if he or she has 
determined the elimination of the cash portion would cause undue 
hardship. The entire NAP caseload could be exempted if the study shows 
the policy change would have significant adverse effects.
  Another provision in the bill requires USDA to pilot different ways 
to deliver food assistance to needy people in the Commonwealth of 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Here we expect USDA to look at 
different ways to structure food aid based on the structure of SNAP, 
but recognizing many of the SNAP administrative requirements may not be 
appropriate for such a small government and isolated population.
  There is a wide range of options between the current block grant and 
full SNAP implementation. For example, we expect any program would be 
run with integrity, but this does not necessarily mean the SNAP quality 
control review process--one of the most rigorous to which any public 
program is subject--is the only way to review payment accuracy in the 
CNMI. In the area of benefit issuance, SNAP has highly detailed 
standards for Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. This approach 
works well in the United States, but may not be appropriate for the 
CNMI. SNAP has very explicit rules about how benefits are determined 
and recognizes assorted expenses as deductions from income. CNMI may be 
better able to run a program with greater standardization of benefits. 
None of this is to argue for any specific approach. Rather, we expect 
USDA to look for ways to improve nutrition assistance to the residents 
of the CNMI in a manner that its government can deliver.
  As I said at the start, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. I'm 
not pleased we had to reduce food assistance to any low-income 
households. But overall, we have continued the long tradition in the 
Agriculture Committee of bipartisan support for the program. It has 
taken us two years and countless hours to come to a compromise over a 
wide range of complex agriculture and nutrition issues while still 
contributing to reducing the federal deficit. This farm bill is an 
important step in dealing with the most important food and agricultural 
issues facing the Nation today. I again, voice my support for this 
language and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this compromise bill, 
although I congratulate the people for working very hard on it. But the 
change in the heat and eat option is not just a little technical 
change; it is a change that has a freezing, chilling impact on every 
single SNAP recipient in Wisconsin. It not only increases bureaucracy, 
it decreases SNAP benefits to Wisconsin families whose benefits were 
cut already in November.

                              {time}  0945

  I am deeply concerned about the concrete hurt, hunger, and, quite 
frankly, the frigid cold that we impose today on thousands of low-
income American households, including seniors, children, and the 
disabled. As many as 255,000 SNAP cases in Wisconsin will be affected 
by this change.
  How do I explain this to the women, children, seniors, and disabled 
in households how this ``technical change'' is minor when they stand to 
lose $90 a month in benefits? When you consider what they lost in 
November, $90 a month to a poor family is not a ``technical change.'' 
It is a lot of money. It is more than $1,000 a year.
  The price of food is not going to go down, nor is the price of fuel, 
nor is the purchasing power of the poor going to go up. SNAP benefits 
already do not meet nutritional needs throughout the month, and this 
change will mean that real food will be off real tables and out of the 
stomachs of current recipients. The proposed cut on top of ARRA 
resulted in a 9 percent drop in benefits allocation to Wisconsin. It is 
just too much.
  In the heat or eat States, that is as much as 11 percent of all 
beneficiaries. In one step, we imposed new administrative costs on 
those States and make it harder to keep SNAP more responsive. Kids were 
off school 2 days--2 days--this week because of the frigid, dangerous 
cold. And throwing these families back to heat or eat is the wrong 
thing to do.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), another one of my outstanding subcommittee 
chairmen.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to first say thank 
you to Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson. The Ag Committee has 
some of the most conservative Members of the House and some of the most 
liberal Members of the House, and I will tell you we have a lot of 
different

[[Page 2169]]

opinions about what could and what should be done, but we had 
respectful discussion across the aisle and across the philosophical 
debates.
  I have said many times from this podium that the foundation of our 
economy in this country is based on two things, one of them being 
manufacturing and the other one based on agriculture.
  This bill does the things it needs to do to ensure that foundation 
for our agricultural producers to help with that part of the economy. 
It also ensures that, as those farmers go forward and do the things 
that they do in providing the food, the nutrition, and the fiber, not 
only for America but for the rest of the world, that Americans--
Americans--when they go to the grocery store, will get more for their 
dollar than any other country as they seek to feed their families.
  We found agreement to clean up waste and abuse within many of the 
systems, including the food stamp system. We have given more money to 
food banks, which I think is extremely important in making sure that 
the most needy of American citizens have a place to go and make sure 
that they can get the nutrition that they need.
  We have put some new policies in place, and I am confident that this 
bill is a move in the right direction. Where we have got those areas 
where we did not find the agreement, I am confident we will be able to 
come back and work on those.
  I am proud to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the chairman and the ranking 
member for your incredible hard work. The folks of Oklahoma and 
Minnesota should be proud of the representatives that they have sent 
here.
  I am proud of this piece of legislation. I stand in support of it. It 
has been 2 years. I feel like we have been at it most of our lives. And 
while I hear people pointing out problems, I am certainly there. If we 
had each written this bill, it would look different. I hear people say 
it is not perfect. We had a former colleague once who said, Of course 
it is not perfect. If you want perfect, you will get that in Heaven. 
And at times, this place is closer to Hell.
  So this is a pretty good compromise that we have come up with. It 
certainly does things, and I am proud to say it makes bold new 
investments in clean and renewable, American-made energy. This is a 
tough decision in a tough budgeting time; and of the commitment of this 
committee to make that happen, I could not be prouder.
  It also takes bold steps moving the country forward on conservation 
measures. One piece in here, protecting our native prairies in the 
Midwest, is fabulous. And I want to thank the gentlelady from South 
Dakota (Ms. Noem) for her unwavering effort on this.
  I would say this: we reject the false choice that you have to choose 
between sportsmen's conservation and producing food on the land. You 
can have all things. And as the folks over at Ducks Unlimited said, 
this is one of the best pieces of conservation legislation in decades. 
We come out and do that. So we have struck a balance here, producing 
the food, feeding the world, clothing the world, and empowering the 
world, and at the same time providing for the heritage of our sportsmen 
and the pristine beauty of our country. So it can happen.
  As a veteran, I am proud that we took a bold step in here trying to 
figure ways to get returning veterans back on the land. The average age 
of a farmer in this country is 57 years old. We need new folks on the 
land, and that comes with high land prices and access to capital.
  Mr. Peterson, Mr. Fortenberry, and I worked on some beginning farmer 
and rancher legislation. Senator Klobuchar on the Senate side and the 
chairman made sure it happened here. It is going to work. It provides 
some of that access, and it keeps our family farms continuing on.
  So there are things to point out that you are frustrated with. I 
understand that. But there is a lot of good in this bill. It is a 
compromise. We came together. We tried to find and strike those 
balances. We continue to feed those folks who need the safety net, and 
we continue to make sure that our producers have the certainty that 
they need.
  I have to tell you, all across this country this morning, producers 
woke up and quietly went about their business feeding, fueling, and 
powering America. We can say ``thank you'' by passing this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, rather than producing a farm bill that 
meets our traditional responsibilities as a Congress to support working 
families and farmers, this bill will do great damage to the Nation's 
most vulnerable citizens. This bill slashes $8.6 billion from food 
stamps, our Nation's most important antihunger program--this is in 
addition to the $11 billion already cut--while it goes out of its way 
to reopen the loopholes that benefit millionaires and billionaires.
  Interesting enough, this bill increases the deficit this year, and 
the Congressional Budget Office has said that it doesn't save the $23 
billion that it claims to save. This bill results in winners and 
losers.
  Winners--wealthy farmers and agribusinesses who will be able to 
pocket crop insurance subsidies and other government handouts beyond 
the already generous limits passed earlier by both the House and the 
Senate. The Congressional Budget Office, again, says it increases 
spending on crop insurance by $5.7 billion.
  The Senate passed a bipartisan amendment to reduce the level of 
Federal premium support for crop insurance participants who make over 
$750,000, but the conference raised it to $900,000--winners.
  Against the expressed wishes of both Houses, the bill's drafters 
reopened a loophole which was closed in both the House and the Senate 
bills which allows farming enterprises to overcollect on commodity 
payments--winners.
  But then who are the losers? And there are losers in the farm bill. 
The losers are the 850,000 low-income households all over America, 1.7 
million Americans who will lose 66 meals a month because of these cuts 
to food stamps.
  Who are we talking about? Children who will go hungry and spend all 
the next day at school. They will go to bed hungry, spend the next day 
at school unable to concentrate because they are thinking about food. 
Veterans, roughly 900,000 of whom receive food stamps, and working 
families who will face an empty fridge and a gnawing pain in their 
stomach for weeks and weeks. Seniors have to choose between food or 
warmth, whose health will deteriorate for want of sustenance.
  These are our own people we are consigning to this fate, hardworking 
people in our districts and in our communities. And if you vote for 
this bill, you will have to look them in the eye and tell them to go 
without food, that they have to endure hunger because we had to give 
more handouts to millionaires and to billionaires.
  That is what this farm bill is about. Make no mistake. It increases 
hunger rather than decreases hunger in America. It picks winners and 
losers rather than ensuring we are supporting those that grow and those 
that consume the food we produce in this Nation of plenty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It picks winners and losers rather than ensuring that we 
are supporting those that grow and those that consume the food that we 
produce in this Nation of plenty, which is what farm bills have been 
about in the past.
  I have negotiated nutrition titles in farm bills. This is a farm bill 
that undermines the health and the well-being of the most vulnerable in 
our society.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who has worked extremely diligently early 
on on this bill and through the entire process.

[[Page 2170]]


  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, thank you to Chairman 
Lucas for the leadership he has shown in getting this conference report 
to the floor.
  I rise in strong support of this conference committee report. It is a 
commonsense piece of legislation that deals with things such as 
overregulation. That is a silent job killer that this administration is 
implementing through our agricultural industry. I am proud that many of 
the provisions that I helped craft are in this final farm bill to 
reduce that opportunity for this administration to continue to kill 
jobs in this country.
  We see some commonsense reforms to the SNAP program. Our goal should 
be to get people off of SNAP and into jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill 
is a lesson in fiscal responsibility. It is one of the single largest 
cuts in mandatory spending that this Congress has done, which is 
putting our country on a path to complete fiscal responsibility. These 
are some of the decisions that we need to make. Most of those cuts are 
in the agricultural side.
  We need to understand that this is a commonsense piece of 
legislation. It is going to continue to reduce our deficit in this 
country, put us on a path to paying down our national debt, and putting 
excellent long-term farm policy in place for years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the committee.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, we serve in an imperfect Congress, and we are 
voting on an imperfect farm bill. In some cases, we spend far too much 
needlessly and irresponsibly, and in some cases we spend far too little 
unwisely and irresponsibly. But a 5-year farm bill is absolutely 
crucial to America, and it is crucial to Vermont dairy farmers.
  This bill takes three important steps for dairy farmers in Vermont 
and throughout the country:
  One, it creates a modern-day insurance program which protects farmers 
against the wild swings in feed prices which are totally out of their 
control;
  Two, it protects taxpayers, as well as farmers, by limiting insurance 
to a farmer's base production; and
  Three, finally, it gives USDA the tools to intervene if dairy prices 
drop dramatically.
  Mr. Speaker, with its faults and imperfections, America does need a 
new farm bill. Agriculture is changing all around us. Local food is a 
growing sector in my State. The organic sector is booming, and people 
are much more aware of their food and farms. This farm bill invests in 
local foods, provides insurance to small farmers, and puts organic 
farming on a strong footing for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the nutrition title in the 
Conference Report for the 2014 Farm Bill. I served on the House 
Agriculture Committee through the 112th Congress, when the Agriculture 
Committee began its farm bill deliberations and wrote its first version 
of the farm bill, including the nutrition title. I am very familiar 
with the changes to the nutrition title in the final conference 
agreement. This bill represents an imperfect but bi-partisan and bi-
cameral compromise. While I am disappointed that the Conferees were not 
able to make new investments in SNAP to help the struggling families in 
Vermont and around this country put food on the table, the bill makes 
some modest improvements and has wisely rejected many of the cuts in 
the House bill.
  In fact, the nutrition title reflects the success SNAP has had 
providing nutrition assistance during the historic rise in need as a 
result of the Great Recession. Not only has the program been responsive 
to need, but it's maintained historically low payment error and 
trafficking rates. The farm bill makes some improvements to keep the 
program operating efficiently and to remain the lifeline that it is for 
so many of our neighbors. It also modestly invests in anti-fraud 
efforts and promising employment and training programs.
  I would like to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits in 
the bill that affects households in Vermont. The farm bill cuts about 
$90 a month to about 850,000 families nationwide by increasing the 
level of federal energy assistance required to trigger higher benefits 
among recipients. This provision changes the SNAP benefit calculation 
for households receiving very small LIHEAP payments in Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program benefits. This cut will cause pain for the 
households that will see their benefits reduced. Despite the change, 
it's important for people who have heating or cooling expenses to 
maintain the deduction they are eligible for. The conferees have 
assured us that the provision will maintain the fundamental link 
between traditional LIHEAP programs and SNAP.
  For this change to be executed properly, it is essential that USDA 
work closely with states to ensure that no SNAP household who also 
participates in LIHEAP inadvertently lose benefits. Many of those that 
currently receive the SUA due to a $1 LIHEAP benefit may still pay for 
heating or cooling, and so they need a chance to show that they have 
those expenses. The process to do so should be designed to minimize the 
burden on these households.
  More important is to ensure that households that do not receive 
smaller LIHEAP benefits are not adversely affected by any aspect of 
this provision's implementation. The Agriculture Committees debated 
several approaches to resolving this issue, and savings were never 
attributed to states that did not provide a smaller LIHEAP benefit. 
USDA must ensure that this provision's impact is limited only to 
household that receive a minor LIHEAP payment, such as $1. I do not 
envision that states will need to make changes to their forms or 
verification policies.
  The farm bill also includes a number of improvements in the SNAP 
operation and administration. Like with the SUA provision, it's clear 
from these provisions that the conferees were committed to focusing on 
changes that placed the burden on state agencies, not households 
applying for or participating in the program. For example, there's a 
requirement that states check state lottery and gaming records to make 
sure no lottery winners who are ineligible, due to their winnings, stay 
on the program. It's a reasonable policy, and the conferees wisely 
require the state to rely on records to identify the rare instance 
rather than ask demeaning questions of every SNAP applicant. There are 
other examples--such as use of the national New Hire Database--where 
the bill charges USDA and state agencies to use databases, technology 
and back office functions to improve the program without burdening SNAP 
applicants and participants. I do not expect states to have to add 
questions to their applications seeking information on whether 
applicants were ever convicted of a heinous crime in response to the 
provision that reiterates current policy with respect to fleeing 
felons. Asking low-income families and seniors in need whether they 
have won the lottery or are a convicted murderer compromises the 
programs' image and would denigrate people for needing its help.
  There are also some promising changes to the program for the 
retailers that participate. The farm bill authorizes pilot programs to 
test the use of mobile technologies in SNAP--things like smart phone 
apps that have become increasingly common in the larger retail world. 
This may be especially important to farmers markets and vegetable 
stands that are unable to install traditional EBT processing machines. 
While expanding potential options for retailers is important, it is 
critical to the long term success of the program that bad actors 
looking to take advantage of new approaches are kept out of the 
program. I urge USDA to set high retailer integrity standards and 
carefully monitor the pilots to prevent fraud. There's a similar 
provision that tests the feasibility of allowing the online purchase of 
food with SNAP benefits, reflecting a growing food industry trend 
towards online transactions with delivery. This can help make the 
program accessible to individuals who may have trouble getting to a 
store, but rigorous anti-fraud standards must apply to any new way of 
redeeming benefits, and it will require USDA to be actively engaged in 
monitoring the pilot.
  I would like to point out that these new mobile and online 
technologies, common in the food retail world, do not rely on photo 
identification or other biometric information to authorize payments and 
maintain integrity. For both the customer and the retailer, the SNAP 
retail transaction should look like any other debit card transaction. 
Thus, I urge USDA to stop allowing misguided efforts at the state level 
to require photos on SNAP cards or to be presented at the point of 
purchase. USDA must increase its scrutiny of such efforts to ensure 
that all household members and authorized representatives can use 
purchase food on behalf of the household. Technology has made these 
conditions on the use of benefits obsolete in the retail environment, 
and so they should be eliminated from the SNAP retail environment as 
well.
  I commend the work of the Agriculture Committee conferees to identify 
areas of bipartisan agreement that improve without imposing

[[Page 2171]]

undue hardship on participating households. The Agriculture Committees 
have a long standing history of working together to solve difficult 
complex food and agriculture issues facing the nation. This farm bill 
is a solid step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want my colleagues to understand why those of us who are opposing 
this bill because of the SNAP cuts are so concerned.
  On November 1, when the ARRA moneys ran out, all 47 million people 
who are on SNAP received a cut. For the average family of three, that 
was about a $37 reduction per month, which is a lot of money when you 
are struggling to put food on the table, because, quite frankly, the 
SNAP benefit in and of itself is not adequate. People end up going to 
food banks anyway.
  If this bill passes, for over 800,000 families, well over 1 million 
people, for the average family of three, an additional $90 cut will go 
into effect. That is $120. I don't know where they are going to make 
that up. I don't know where they are going to go to get help. We can 
say, yeah, let the States pick it up. Well, the States aren't rushing 
to pick anything up. Well, let the charities pick it up. Read the 
newspaper. Last week, The New York Times said that all of our food 
banks are at capacity. They can't do it.
  So what is going to happen to these people? In the United States of 
America, the richest country in the history of the world, we ought to 
all pledge that nobody--and I mean nobody--ought to go hungry. That is 
what this fight is about.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time the three of us 
have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who understands the diversity of weather 
and understands the challenges that producers have.

                              {time}  1000

  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and for 
his leadership on the farm bill, and also Ranking Member Peterson for 
all of his hard work and diligence in finding some common ground on a 
bill that has been under negotiation for far too long.
  I am so happy to be standing here with all of our Members and our 
colleagues from the farm bill conference committee, which I was honored 
to be a part of, and also with everyone else who is going to support 
this bill. It is extremely bipartisan.
  It has taken a lot of hard work to get to this point. I am proud of 
the fact that we have a product in front of us that is not only good 
for producers, it is good for consumers. It secures our food supply 
into the future, which is one of the safest in the world.
  We make reforms. We save billions of tax dollars. It is accountable 
to the taxpayer in this country. We conserve wildlife habitat. We 
provide a viable safety net for those who grow our food and for those 
who rely on food assistance as well.
  While Congress was writing this bill, my home State got hit with 
droughts and blizzards that cost us tens of thousands of livestock. The 
livestock disaster programs that I authored are in this bill and will 
provide much-needed relief to those who are struggling so hard during 
this difficult time.
  Our Black Hills National Forest is going to gain some regulatory 
relief and additional tools to combat the pine beetle that is 
destroying our Black Hills and our forests across this country.
  The nine tribes in South Dakota are going to get a permanent Office 
of Tribal Relations--a real victory for all of our tribes across this 
country who really need to have better communication within USDA.
  Thousands of hunters in South Dakota and across the country every 
year are going to be glad to know that they have got a provision in 
place that will help protect grasslands.
  Whether you grow corn, wheat, soybeans, or cotton, producers are 
going to have more choices, which really at the end of the day is going 
to help them cover their risk that they take every year. I am proud of 
the bill, I am proud of our work, and I urge our colleague to support 
the bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this farm bill. 
This is a strong, reform-minded bill with bipartisan support. It will 
grow our economy, create jobs, provide certainty, reduce our deficit, 
and save the American taxpayers $16 billion.
  The bill reforms the farm safety net, strengthening crop insurance 
and commodity programs. These risk management tools assure farmers that 
help is there when they need it.
  The bill also encourages conservation and develops export markets to 
help our farmers sell their products worldwide. Rural communities 
depend on the farm bill too. Through critical rural development 
programs, small towns can build hospitals, schools, fire departments, 
and police departments. This bill helps create jobs and economic 
development.
  Water and wastewater programs, the most basic of public services that 
allow industries to come to rural areas, give access to healthy 
drinking water, and sanitary sewers, are part of this as well.
  This bill has important tools for new farmers, and I can tell you, as 
one in the State of North Carolina, where one out of every five jobs 
are dependent upon agriculture or agri-related business, this bill is 
about jobs and our economy and ways that it helps States throughout 
America.
  There is still some work to do, like bringing Country of Origin 
Labeling rules into compliance with WTO and reducing the GIPSA rules. 
However, our farmers, their families, and small towns all across 
America have waited too long for a new farm bill.
  Our citizens in rural America are taxpayers just as much as those who 
live in urban and suburban areas. They deserve the respect of this 
Congress. They deserve a farm bill that works for our citizens who live 
in rural areas. They deserve the passage of this bill.
  We all as Americans enjoy our wonderful supply of food and fiber that 
the good Lord has blessed us with and that our farmers work so hard to 
supply. We ought to work with our farmers and with agriculture and have 
a strong farm bill that our citizens in all of America deserve to have 
passed.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
point.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), another one of our outstanding 
subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
this farm bill, and also to thank Chairman Lucas and Congressman 
Peterson for their leadership on agriculture.
  As many of my House colleagues have already said this morning, this 
legislation is long overdue. This bill is truly worthy of its name, the 
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, because of the 
historic reforms it legislates.
  Overall, the bill repeals or consolidates about 100 programs. Along 
with sequestration reductions, it cuts mandatory spending by nearly $23 
billion.
  In the conservation title alone, we reduced programs from 23 down to 
13. This change alone saves $6 billion, and I believe does so without 
undercutting the effectiveness of the needed programs.
  We reform food stamps, and we do so through thoughtful, targeted 
changes, ensuring that those who truly need the assistance will receive 
it.
  We finally get positive changes for our dairy farmers who work so 
hard 7 days a week providing milk for this Nation.
  With the 2008 farm bill expiring nearly a year and a half ago, I urge 
my colleagues to vote for this legislation and

[[Page 2172]]

finally give our farmers and rural constituents the support and 
certainty they deserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take 
that much.
  Overall, this farm bill also assures that all Americans have access 
to affordable, high-quality, and safe food.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is bipartisan legislation 
that is good for our farmers and families. It is an accomplishment that 
will create jobs, help our farmers, and preserve access to healthy 
food.
  This bill includes unprecedented funding for specialty crops and 
organic farms. It is no understatement to say that this is the best 
farm bill yet for specialty crop farmers.
  I am proud the farm bill includes $200 million to fund my proposal to 
expand job training programs for SNAP recipients to find self-
sustaining jobs.
  Make no mistake: no one got everything they wanted. I am disappointed 
that nutrition assistance is reduced at a time when the need is high. 
However, this bill will not eliminate SNAP eligibility for anyone still 
in need. In addition, the removal of the dairy stabilization program is 
disappointing. This reform would have helped farmers and protected 
consumers. This bill is an improvement but falls short of solving the 
entire problem.
  Overall, this bill provides the certainty needed to grow our economy 
and bolster America's agriculture industry. I strongly urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the 2014 farm bill is an important example of how 
Congress can produce meaningful bipartisan compromise. Overall, this 
Farm Bill represents years of hard work from a bipartisan coalition of 
lawmakers, farmers and stakeholders from across the country to put 
together a bill that is good for our farmers and families. It's a major 
accomplishment that will create jobs, help our farmers and preserve 
Americans access to quality, healthy food.
  As in all compromises, no one got everything they wanted. I'm 
disappointed that the bill includes reforms that will reduce nutrition 
assistance funding at a time when hunger and poverty remain too high in 
our country. However, unlike the original House Republican proposal, 
which was a $40 billion cut and would have removed nearly 4 million 
people from SNAP, the compromise agreed to today will not eliminate 
SNAP eligibility for anyone still in need. This outcome will garner 
bipartisan support not just because of what it excluded but also for 
the important reforms and program improvements that it includes. I 
would like to discuss the SNAP provisions in the nutrition title in 
greater depth to ensure my colleagues have a richer understanding of 
the outcome of the Conference Committee agreement and what it will mean 
for the program and its participants.
  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP here in 
Washington, DC and as Basic Food in Washington State, is the backbone 
of our federal nutrition assistance safety net. The program has more 
than proven itself during the economic down-turn of the last several 
years. With its help, millions of struggling families and seniors are 
able to put food on the table each day. The program efficiently and 
accurately delivers benefits that have a significant impact on low-
income Americans. Nevertheless, I saw it as my role as a member of the 
Agriculture Committee and as a conferee to search for ways in which the 
program could continue to improve. This farm bill represents the 
conferees' shared vision for ways to improve several aspects of SNAP's 
basic operations.
  One of the changes that we are making, of which I am most proud, is 
the plan to test promising strategies to connect more SNAP participants 
to employment. This legislation includes pilot programs to test 
innovative means of supporting SNAP recipients' efforts to improve 
their lives. This was an aspect of the original House bill that I 
worked on with Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson. 
Unfortunately, the House passed nutrition title also included work 
pilot provisions that had elements that were of serious concern to me. 
As a result, I did not support that bill's final package. As conferees, 
however, we worked to overcome those differences. Many of us worked 
long hours to help craft these pilots, and I think the final provision 
shows the impact of those efforts.
  The farm bill provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative 
and promising state employment and training programs. States can test 
activities that are currently allowed under SNAP's employment and 
training program, activities that are allowed under the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and supportive 
services that SNAP offers to enrollees in SNAP employment and training 
programs such as child care and help with transportation costs. We 
wanted to be sure that states were able to create innovative programs 
for volunteers such as the Job Training Initiative in Seattle which 
focused on skills building or education programs that might improve an 
individual's employability. Moreover, it was very important to us to 
ensure that states could try interventions that have not been permitted 
in SNAP in the past--such as offering child care assistance to an 
underemployed or unemployed parent whose primary barrier to work may 
simply be safe affordable child care. The same approach could be taken 
with transitional housing or other innovative strategies to support 
individuals' ability to increase their earnings. By including TANF 
activities, we were able to ensure that states could test strategies 
around subsidized and unsubsidized employment. We were inspired by the 
effective subsidized employment programs states ran through the TANF 
program during the economic downturn with federal funds made available 
through the Recovery Act. States like Florida and Mississippi were 
major champions of these efforts and we wanted to be sure the pilots 
would support further efforts.
  One of the changes that is potentially most important is the 
inclusion of unsubsidized employment, including private-sector 
employment, as a component to which states could assign individuals. 
Obviously, unsubsidized employment is the goal to which almost all 
workers aspire. On the other hand, because state agencies will not have 
full control over, or even full information about, how these workplaces 
operate, we felt the need to include significant safeguards. 
Longstanding protections against the displacement of other workers 
remain, as do workplace protection laws such as those for health and 
safety, wage and hour standards, family leave, workers' compensation, 
and the like. We expect the Department will promulgate extensive 
standards in this regard and will supplement those standards as 
experience shows necessary. In addition, the agreement ensures that 
individuals who participate in employment activities in the work pilots 
should not be subject to sanctions unless clear evidence shows that 
that the individual wilfully refused to take actions that she or he 
could safely and properly take. If the employer does not give the 
individual as many hours as expected, or if the employer finds the 
individual's skills lacking, or if the employer asks the individual to 
work at a time when the individual lacks child care or transportation, 
no sanction should apply. Where the state is uncertain what happened or 
has no clear evidence of wilful refusal to comply, no sanction is 
appropriate. Often, states just will not be entirely sure what happened 
because they do not have the oversight over private employers in the 
way that the usually do over work programs the states themselves 
operate.
  The inclusion of private-sector employment as a component to which 
workers could be assigned does not in any way disparage states' 
existing authority to treat jobs that SNAP applicants and recipients 
have found for themselves as allowable work activities, obviating the 
need for other placements and allowing the state to provide supportive 
services the way it would to applicants and recipients in activities to 
which the state had assigned them. We have no reason to value, or 
support, a job that an enterprising recipient has found for her or 
himself any less than we do a work assignment or training program to 
which the state has assigned her or him. In each case, SNAP E&T's 
single-minded goal should be for the applicant or recipient to succeed.
  While the pilot projects are the work-related aspects of the title 
that have gotten the most attention, the conferees included other 
important reforms to SNAP employment and training. Consistent with the 
original House bill, we felt it is very important for states and USDA 
to do a better job of tracking outcomes for the services that they 
offer SNAP participants. For their part, USDA must use this information 
to assess whether SNAP employment and training can do better and 
achieve more lasting long-term outcomes. That information will be 
crucial to us when we reauthorize the program in another five years. Of 
course, we understand that SNAP participants are often poor and low 
skilled. We were very clear that expectations and outcomes for these 
services

[[Page 2173]]

need to be appropriate. Not everyone will find employment immediately, 
especially in this economy. We expect that these measures will consider 
that some employment and training services--such as career and 
technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains over the long 
haul but participants would not immediately find those jobs because 
they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To that end, 
USDA's study needs to recognize that getting better jobs may require 
getting skills first, so delayed but enduring improvements are 
important to monitor. We also believe, informed by the great work of 
the Basic Food Employment and Training Program in my home state of 
Washington, that connecting individuals to the right activity to help 
them move forward is half the battle. We have called for USDA to 
increase their monitoring of states' employment and training programs 
and we expect them to make individual assessment of SNAP work 
registrants, which is already a requirement, a key feature of their 
state reviews.
  Another key provision of the package is the effort to address the 
relationship between SNAP and the Low-Income Heating and Energy 
Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Of course, I am disappointed that the 
final legislation includes any benefit reductions at all. Washington is 
one of the states that had been using this option to leverage 
additional benefits to our low-income households. I am satisfied that 
the conferees did the best they could in narrowly targeting those 
reductions to impact only those households who are claiming a standard 
utility allowance by virtue of their receipt of a very small LIHEAP 
benefit and, as a result, receiving a larger SNAP benefit. I wanted to 
be sure that we would not impact households who receive more 
traditional LIHEAP benefits. USDA assured us that individuals who 
currently claim the SUA as a result of their participation in or 
expected participation in LIHEAP will continue to be able to do so. 
This change is meant to have its desired effect by states dropping 
their nominal LIHEAP programs and informing USDA that they no longer 
provide token payments. In that way, no one in the 34 states that have 
not adopted this practice will see additional verification requirements 
or barriers to claiming the SUA. At the same time, in my own state, 
households that participate in our regular LIHEAP program should not 
experience any change in their certification process as a result of 
this change.
  Moreover, nothing in this legislation will have any negative effect 
on those households that have energy costs. We understand that, across 
the country, a wide range of billing arrangements exist between 
landlords and tenants. Even if a tenant does not pay utility bills 
directly, if the landlord imposes a surcharge for utilities, the tenant 
should be entitled to the standard utility allowance. States have the 
capacity to look into and understand the various arrangements that 
exist, and we should honor their determinations. A token one dollar 
LIHEAP payment will not trigger eligibility for the SUA, but if the 
state commits real money to energy assistance for a household because 
it believes that household is vulnerable to utility costs, we should 
continue to honor that judgment. The final legislation appropriately 
honors that principle, unlike some earlier drafts.
  Although on a much smaller scale, the bill includes several other 
provisions where our intent was to tighten up or to clarify program 
rules in a way that addresses concerns, but that does not increase 
application burdens on the millions of law abiding low income 
individuals who participate in this program. Our goal wherever 
possible, was for state SNAP agencies to bear the burden of 
implementing these changes so that we would maintain the same level of 
access for SNAP households. Take for example the provision to require 
that all states verify immigrant eligibility through the Citizenship 
and Immigration Service. That requirement ensures that all states are 
taking advantage of this high quality third party information to verify 
immigration status. Nothing about this change, however, will change the 
way that immigrants provide information about their immigration status. 
The same is true of the prohibition on households with individuals who 
win significant lottery or gambling winnings from participating in the 
program. The conferees agreed that this prohibition should not be 
implemented by requiring all 47 million individuals on SNAP to report 
whether they had or had not recently won the lottery. To ask extremely 
poor individuals that question would border on offensive. Instead, 
states will have to work with their state level lotteries to obtain a 
list of lottery winners against which they can match to the SNAP 
caseload. We also took the same approach on the reiteration of the 
current law restriction on fleeing felons. Some of the conferees felt 
strongly that we reiterate that individuals convicted of particularly 
heinous crimes who fall out of line with the terms of their parole are 
not eligible for SNAP. As that is the current policy, there is no need 
to make changes to states' application or verification systems to 
implement this provision. We also included several provisions that are 
consistent with current USDA rules and guidance governing SNAP. Our 
goal was to codify these rules into federal law. As such, we banned 
household expenditures on medical marijuana as an allowable expense 
under the medical expense deduction. We codified the rules regarding 
students participate in employment and training. Similarly, our efforts 
to clarify that SNAP outreach workers may not earn a bounty for each 
application they help an individual complete or may not pressure 
someone who doesn't wish to apply to do so are consistent with current 
USDA guidelines and rules governing outreach. None of these provisions 
should have any impact on current clients our state outreach programs.
  Finally, we included several provisions that will help to improve 
access to healthy food options by requiring stores to stock more 
perishable foods, allowing community supported agriculture programs to 
participate as authorized SNAP retailers, and testing new ways for 
clients to make purchases with their SNAP benefit card (for example, by 
swiping SNAP cards on mobile devices at farmers' markets) that could 
open up the program to more retailers with healthy options. In testing 
these new technologies, we have urged USDA to take every precaution to 
ensure that these advances do not compromise program integrity. We 
anticipate they can overcome any challenges on this front and 
successfully implement these options. The bill includes many other 
provisions that affect other nutrition programs. I am very pleased that 
we are increasing funding for food banks and emergency food providers. 
These organizations are on the front lines of hunger and merit all the 
support we can provide. We've also included support for community food 
program grants and created a new national healthy food incentive 
program modeled after private and foundation efforts to incentivize 
health food purchases for SNAP participants by providing participants 
with vouchers to purchase foods at local farmers markets. These efforts 
will complement our efforts to address hunger through the major federal 
nutrition programs.
  As I said before, this bill is not perfect. However, the farm bill 
conference report successfully addresses the most important food and 
agricultural issues facing our country today while contributing to 
deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to reiterate one 
thing. Some may view that I represent the State of Connecticut, the 
Third Congressional District in Connecticut, and, in fact, what do we 
know about farming? The fact is that we do. We have dairy farmers, 
people with specialty crops, and included in my history in this great 
body, I served as chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee on 
Appropriations. I also served as the ranking member, and, as I 
mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to be part of the conference 
committee on the farm bill in 2008 and helped to negotiate the 
nutrition title.
  If I can make one or two more points. This farm bill says that it is 
going to save $23 billion. They count savings from over a year ago. 
They talk about $16.6 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says 
that even as we cut that $8.6 billion from the food stamp program, 
taking meals away from 1.7 million of the most vulnerable in our 
society, we are increasing spending on crop insurance by $5.7 billion 
in the farm bill.
  In case folks do not know, the fact of the matter is that Americans 
subsidize crop insurance. We pick up over 60 percent of the cost of the 
premiums on crop insurance. We pay 100 percent of the administrative 
costs in terms of crop insurance. We have 26 individuals who get at 
least $1 million in a crop insurance subsidy, and we can't find out who 
they are.
  While the cuts in food stamp benefits are going to be felt 
immediately across those 850,000 households, primarily made up of 
children, the elderly, disabled, and veterans, few if any of the 
Congressional Budget Office projected commodity programs savings may 
ever be realized if crop prices continue to fall. This is reflected in 
that CBO score that the deficit would be increased this

[[Page 2174]]

year with this bill. Only food stamps would be cut this year. We should 
vote against this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek) who 
is so focused on these issues.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, who had to do a lot of work on this bill over the years, and I 
rise today in support of the Agriculture Act of 2014. This measure is 
important for farms and hardworking families in northern Michigan.
  Northern Michigan is home to a number of centennial family farms, 
meaning they have been in the family for over 100 years--farms like the 
Bardenhagen's in Suttons Bay, where they grow asparagus, apples, 
cherries, and potatoes. Take a short drive down the road, and you will 
find another centennial family farm at the Wagner's in Grawn. They grow 
corn, wheat, soybeans, and raise beef cattle for their neighbors. These 
family-owned operations are a vital and growing part of northern 
Michigan's economy, and it has been an honor to get to know them.
  These growers work hard to produce quality products--like tart 
cherries, apples, and asparagus--that feed northern Michigan and 
families around the world.
  This bill represents the hard work and input of stakeholders from 
northern Michigan and across the country. While not perfect, it 
reflects the needs of our rural agricultural economy that is vital to 
Michigan's First Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to 
support passage of this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  Agriculture, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart and soul of our 
Nation. It provides the food we eat. It provides the clothes we wear. 
It provides the material to build our homes and our shelters. No 
committee is as engaged in the entire nooks and crannies of the fabric 
of this Nation as the Agriculture Committee. This farm bill is a 
product of what makes America great. What makes America great is our 
democratic Republic, the anchor of which is compromise.
  I want to commend Mr. Peterson, our ranking member, for his job; Mr. 
Lucas, the chair of our committee, for his job. It has been 5 years we 
have been on this. I particularly want to thank Mr. Peterson. It was a 
pleasure working with Mr. Peterson on an issue very dear to him, which 
is dairy, as we worked out the fabric of that. I commend the leadership 
on our committee.
  However, there is yet work to be done. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) was right. Mr. McGovern was right. Ladies and 
gentlemen of this committee and this House and in this Nation, we have 
got a serious problem with hunger in this country, and it is not going 
away until we realize the gravity of it. Our veterans, our seniors, the 
most vulnerable--we must address this issue.
  My position on this bill is that I will vote for it. We have worked 
on it. Is it a perfect bill? No, it is not. Are we a perfect Nation? 
No, we are not. But we are constantly striving, striving for that, and 
we will get closer to this perfect position as we bring all Americans 
involved and let no American go hungry in this country. I urge everyone 
to please vote for the bill.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  This legislation is commonly referred to as the ``farm bill,'' but it 
is also a ``food bill.'' On that note, it falls short.
  To be clear, this is miles ahead of where we started with what I 
consider a truly heartless Republican proposal, and I know that our 
conferees worked hard to make improvements to this bill. In particular, 
I want to thank Collin Peterson and the Members of the Democratic side 
of the aisle who are dedicated to work to improve this bill.
  But it still leaves too many families behind. The SNAP cut in this 
bill may seem small on paper, but it is not to the families that it 
will affect. It is not to the food banks that are already stretched 
well beyond their means.
  In New York City, 280,000 households are expected to see their 
benefits drop under this bill. Those are benefits that don't go 
anywhere near far enough to begin with.
  We see every day in New York City how deep the need for food 
assistance is. Our food banks and community hunger organizations are 
doing everything they can to provide food to hungry families. They are 
joined by citizen heroes like Jorge Munoz, who I was honored to host 
last night as my guest to the State of the Union.
  Jorge has been called ``an angel in Queens'' for his work in feeding 
the hungry. He saw a need on the streets of Queens and he jumped in to 
fill it, serving home-cooked meals out of his truck to what started as 
a small group of homeless and unemployed New Yorkers. As word grew of 
his generosity, so did the crowds eager just for something to get 
through that night.
  Since 2004, Jorge has served over 225,000 meals on the streets of 
Queens, New York. He and I know there are more people out there who are 
hungry, who are cold, and who are in need of every bit of assistance 
that they get.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. We should be doing more, not less. What is really 
troubling is that I know there are some on the other side of the aisle 
who think this doesn't cut food assistance enough. Imagine that--there 
is $8 billion--$8 billion worth of cuts in this bill, and still that is 
far less than they wanted to cut.
  The fact that in some ways this bill can be considered a compromise 
option just shows how unreasonable the cuts proposed by the other side 
were. What have we come to when we argue about how much of a cut to 
hungry children and families is reasonable?
  Yes, this bill is not as bad as it could be, but it is not as good as 
it should be. That is why I will be voting ``no'' against this bill 
today.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who has some of the most productive agricultural 
land and some of the most amazing farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a great personal privilege and pleasure for me to 
come down here on behalf of 14,000 farmers and ranchers in my district 
and 75,000 farmers and ranchers in the State of Oklahoma, and goodness 
knows how many tens of thousands of people beyond that in various 
phases of agriculture and ag industry, and thank my good friend, 
Chairman Lucas, for what he has accomplished.
  I think it is easy to be the critic; but I think all of us on this 
House floor know how long and how arduous this struggle has been to 
bring all the competing interests together, to bring both sides of the 
aisle together, to bring both Chambers together, and to bring the 
administration together in support of this legislation.
  It is easy to see why you would support it if you actually step back 
and take a look at what it does. First, it does save $23 billion. 
Frankly, those cuts largely don't come out of the safety net programs, 
where actually there is simply relatively modest, but important 
reforms. They actually come out of the production end of this business. 
Changes need to be made there, but we ought to recognize those are 
tough changes in and of themselves.
  Second, it preserves the capability of this country to continue to 
produce more food and fiber than anybody else in the world--not just 
for our people, but for all over the world--and to deliver that at a 
cheaper price than anybody else in the world. It is worth reflecting 
that Americans pay a lower percentage of their income for food than any 
other country in the world. Guess what? With the additional income, 
they are able to do other things, invest in other things, and go on.

[[Page 2175]]

  Finally, I am particularly pleased that the safety net has been 
preserved and that important programs are in place. We ought to 
recognize that wouldn't have been possible without my friend Chairman 
Lucas, all he has done to bring us together and how hard he has worked.
  This bill, frankly, deserves the support of every Democrat and every 
Republican on this floor. I urge my colleagues to be supportive when 
the time to vote comes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I believe I 
have the right to close. I reserve the balance of my time, unless we 
are ready to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
recognized first to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if there are no 
other speakers, but my understanding is that Mr. Peterson may have one 
other speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, we had one Member that wanted to speak, 
and we are trying to ascertain his whereabouts at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let me give an update on the times 
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Minnesota has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members want to get out of 
here and get on planes and so forth, so after Mr. McGovern closes, I 
will yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, let me say that I am grateful to Chairman Lucas and 
Ranking Member Peterson. I appreciate their hard work. I appreciate 
their dedication on these issues. It is a privilege to be on the 
Agriculture Committee, and I am proud to serve with them, as with the 
other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by speaking to my fellow 
Democrats.
  Last night, we sat in this Chamber and we listened to the President 
give his State of the Union address. When he talked about raising the 
minimum wage, we all stood up and cheered. When he talked about the 
need to address income inequality, we all applauded. But cheers and 
applause aren't enough.
  I ask my colleagues to think back, to remember listening to their 
parents or their grandparents talk about how Franklin Roosevelt always 
stood up for the little guy. Remember those pictures of Bobby Kennedy 
touring through Appalachia and touching the cheeks of hungry children.
  That is why we became Democrats in the first place. Those are the 
people that got us into politics. Those are our people.
  Don't throw that away just to be able to say you voted for a farm 
bill. Don't turn your backs on our heritage and on our history by 
giving bipartisan cover to what I believe is a flawed bill.
  We don't have to do this. The price of admission to pass a farm bill 
should not be more cuts to SNAP. Make no mistake about it, my friends 
on the Republican side are not through when it comes to SNAP. They are 
going to come back after this program again and again and again.
  We need to push back. We need to say enough.
  Some have rationalized these cuts; some have tried to explain them 
away as being nothing but closing a loophole. They are wrong. People 
are going to be hurt. People all over this country--1.7 million 
people--are going to be impacted by this. There should be nobody in 
this country--the richest country in the history of the world--who 
should ever go hungry. That should be a nonpartisan issue.
  But to my fellow Democrats, in particular, this is an issue that we 
have championed time and time again over the many years of the 
existence of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. Vote 
your conscience.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well.
  I want to again thank the chairman and all of the Members on both 
sides of the aisle for their work and hanging in there for all these 
months and years to get to this point, and congratulate the chairman on 
what I expect to be a successful outcome in a little bit of time here.
  With that, I would ask everybody to support this conference report, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would also like to join my colleague in adding to the 
Congressional Record a list of the majority staff members.
  I must say in all fairness, while there was cooperation among the 
members of the committee itself, the cooperation among House and Senate 
Members was exemplary.
  I would also note the work of our staff, those good men and women, R 
and D, House and Senate, over the course of these years cannot be 
underestimated or underappreciated. The hours, the spirit of comity, 
the focus on accomplishing things, trying to do good policy, it just 
cannot be overstated how important all those good folks have been.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, let me simply close by saying this: no one 
cares more about agricultural policy, farmers and ranchers, consumers 
and everyone in the process that takes it from the seed to the plate or 
the bowl than I do. But I think in good faith I can say my colleague 
Mr. Peterson cares just as much as I do. The members of our committee 
care just as much as we do.
  This bill, done in what I would like to define as regular order 
through the committee process and the floor and the conference, may not 
have exactly everything my friends on the right would want or my 
friends on the left would want, but it represents making the process 
work, achieving consensus, putting into place policies that are better 
than what were there before to drive this effort forward.
  I know that we sincerely disagree on many things, and I know some of 
my friends don't sometimes act like they care about what happens out on 
the farm or the ranch. I know that is not the case. They do care.
  But I would simply say this: no matter how much money we spend on 
supplemental programs to make sure our fellow citizens have enough to 
eat--and that is important--never forget if there is not a product on 
the shelf, if there is not meat in the case, if there are not 
vegetables or fruit available, it doesn't matter how much you 
subsidize. The food has to be there.
  That is why I have said all along a farm bill still has to have farm 
in it. This Agriculture Act of 2014 lives up to that. It makes a 
commitment to our fellow citizens who are in tough times, but it will 
also ensure the food will be there.
  Don't take us down the path that many other countries have gone 
through in the last century of people lined up at empty shelves, people 
hoarding particular ag products because it is available that day 
because they will trade it the next day when something might be 
available.
  Let's continue to do this miracle called American agriculture. Oh, by 
the way, depending on how you define ``miracle'' in the environment we 
have worked together in, this farm bill might not be quite defined by 
most people as a miracle, but it is amazingly close.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass the conference report, let's complete our 
responsibilities, let's show the rest of this place how it is supposed 
to be done.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


               House Committee on Agriculture Staff List

       Majority Staff: Brent Blevins, Caleb Crosswhite, Mike 
     Dunlap, Bart Fischer, Jason Goggins, John Goldberg, Tamara 
     Hinton, John Konya, Kevin Kramp, Brandon Lipps, Alan Mackey, 
     Brian Martin-Haynes,

[[Page 2176]]

     Josh Mathis, Josh Maxwell, Merrick Munday, Danita Murray, 
     Mary Nowak, Riley Pagett, Matt Schertz, Nicole Scott, Debbie 
     Smith, Skylar Sowder, Patricia Straughn, Pelham Straughn, 
     Pete Thomson, Margaret Wetherald.

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Agricultural 
Act of 2014.
  I want to congratulate all the conferees on getting to this point.
  Even though the bill is not perfect, it is needed.
  I am confident that this legislation will serve Nebraska farmers 
well.
  My main concern with the bill was making meaningful reforms to SNAP 
so that it serves those who really need it without the rampant waste, 
fraud, and abuse that currently plagues the system.
  I am pleased that the conferees included the establishment of a 10-
state pilot program to empower states to engage able-bodied adults in 
mandatory work programs.
  This is a commonsense reform and it's my hope my home state of 
Nebraska choses to participate in this pilot.
  This farm bill is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the work of the 
Agriculture Committee and especially Chairman Lucas, to bring this very 
long farm bill negotiation to a conclusion. Agriculture and all of its 
supporting industries desperately need a five-year farm bill and the 
stability it brings.
  I am profoundly disappointed, however, that the bill does not take 
the opportunity to resolve some very important issues affecting 
livestock. The Country of Origin Labeling rule proposed by the 
Administration is unworkable and puts our livestock industry at a 
significant disadvantage. It will invite punitive trade sanctions. That 
requirement should have been repealed, and I will continue to work to 
repeal it.
  Similarly, Congress has regularly prevented the implementation of the 
controversial provisions of the GIPSA marketing rule through the 
appropriation process. I assume we will continue to do so, but it would 
have been better to remove that threat permanently.
  There was also an opportunity missed to resolve the issue related to 
horse processing, and so the needless suffering of old and unwanted 
horses will continue, as will the effects on the value of horses across 
the country.
  At the same time, the biggest issue facing agriculture in my district 
and throughout most of Texas has been the drought. I appreciate the 
permanent livestock disaster program in this bill, which will be very 
welcomed by livestock producers of all sizes throughout our region of 
the country.
  I believe that the reforms made to commodity programs are needed and 
will strengthen the political viability of those programs into the 
future. Having additional risk management tools available to producers 
who are increasingly competing in a global market should be quite 
helpful.
  Finally, I would strongly prefer to make greater reforms in food 
stamps and other nutrition programs, such as were contained in the 
House passed version, but given the realities of the political 
situation in Washington, I believe that the savings in this bill are a 
step, at least, in the right direction.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have 
joined the majority of Democrats and Republicans who unilaterally alike 
passed a bill that will fund our Nation's most important anti-hunger 
program which touches nearly 1 out of 7 Americans by a vote of 251-166. 
The bill now heads to the President's desk who has indicated he will 
sign it into law in a matter of days.
  In these tough budgetary times, we should not signal to our 
constituents that helping those most in need is no longer a priority. I 
am pleased that the bipartisan, bicameral five-year farm bill contains 
major reforms including eliminating the direct payment program, 
streamlining and consolidating numerous programs to improve their 
effectiveness and reduce duplication, and cutting down on program 
misuse. Additionally, this bill excludes the drastic $40 billion cut in 
the House-passed version of the farm bill, but makes progress in 
addressing hunger and poverty by investing new resources in other 
nutrition programs.
  The bill also renews critical investments in important programs for 
beginning farmers, local food systems, organic agriculture, and healthy 
food access, and also adds conservation requirements to the receipt of 
crop insurance premium subsidies. The final bill also rejected 
proposals to eliminate market and contract protections for livestock 
and poultry farmers.
  Congress first enacted the farm bill in response to the Great 
Depression in order to foster growth in our Nation's economy and to 
protect those who were most in need. Today, we are still recovering 
from what some economists call, ``the Great Recession.'' We find 
ourselves at a crossroads where we must decide how to manage our fiscal 
priorities while still protecting those who were hardest hit by the 
recent recession. President Eisenhower once said, ``Every gun that is 
made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the 
final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who 
are cold and are not clothed.''
  This bill is far from a perfect one. However, given a lengthy two-
and-a-half-year process and the importance of renewing funding for the 
most innovative programs for the future of agriculture and nutrition, I 
supported this carefully negotiated package in an effort to do more 
good than harm. I have received letters from numerous groups including 
several of the largest general farm organizations in the country which 
have voiced support for this bill. I am pleased this bill maintains the 
long-standing bipartisan fashion in which urban and rural members unite 
to support this package.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Lucas 
and Ranking Member Peterson for their work on this issue.
  Although I have deep concerns about this bill, I understand that in 
divided government, no party will get everything it wants.
  That said, this bill lays the foundation for a fundamental reform of 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP--namely, it will 
allow states to require work in exchange for benefits. Before the 1996 
welfare-reform bill, several states experimented with work 
requirements, and the evidence gathered from those experiments led to 
the most expansive reform of the welfare state ever.
  This bill also partially closes a loophole in the SNAP program known 
as ``heat and eat''--a reform included in previous House Budgets.
  Finally, this bill eliminates Direct Payments, excludes supply-
management provisions in the dairy program, and reduces the deficit by 
$16.6 billion over the next ten years. This bill would save more money 
than doing nothing.
  I wish this bill included more reforms to our agricultural programs. 
It did not include crop-insurance reforms supported by both the House 
and the Senate. We should have a safety net for our farmers. We should 
help the little guy--the family farm that's in need. We shouldn't 
bankroll the big guys. So we should tighten the eligibility standards 
for crop subsidies. I'm disappointed we didn't use this opportunity to 
make fundamental changes to business as usual.
  But on the whole, I think this bill will do some good. It will save 
more money than if we did nothing. It will provide some much-needed 
certainty to family farmers. It is an improvement over the status quo, 
and so I support it.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yes'' on 
rollcall 31 on the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2642, ``The Farm 
Bill.''
  This conference report has made great improvements in reducing the 
draconian cuts to the SNAP program proposed in the House passed version 
of the Farm bill. While I appreciate the reduction in cuts, we should 
do more to help those most in need. The Conference report also 
eliminates the King Amendment, which would have destroyed critical 
state safety and labeling laws. The bipartisan bill includes strong 
conservation provisions that will help protect our nation's soil, water 
and wildlife resources. Most notably, the bill makes federal crop 
insurance subsidies contingent on basic soil and wetland conservation 
practices. While not perfect, this conference report is a fair 
compromise that will hopefully lay the groundwork for finding 
additional common ground in the future.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Chairman Lucas 
and his determination to get the Farm Bill across the finish line. The 
Chairman and his staff have put tremendous work into this bipartisan, 
bicameral bill.
  This bill is not perfect. There are several areas we could have done 
more on. I wish we could have implemented more reforms in the food 
stamp program.
  I am also very disappointed that this farm bill does not address 
important issues for livestock and poultry producers--my constituents 
back in North Carolina. As you know, the House-passed Farm Bill did 
include language on the Country of Origin Labeling law and on USDA's 
ability to write regulations related to the buying and selling of 
livestock and poultry.
  Yet, neither is included in this conference report.
  More importantly, as my constituents have pointed out they now face 
retaliation from our trading partners. Also, USDA's livestock 
regulations now threaten to dictate the terms of their private 
contracts.
  Both can cause severe economic harm to North Carolina's farmers and 
ranchers and to the U.S. economy and both must be addressed. I look 
forward to continuing our work

[[Page 2177]]

on these important issues and getting a resolution quickly.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my reluctant support to 
the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and 
Risk Management Act, also known as the Farm Bill. This conference 
report presents us with a difficult choice. On the one hand, it 
contains numerous provisions that benefit our agriculture communities 
and it represents another bipartisan accomplishment from both chambers. 
On the other hand, it makes ill-advised changes in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that, had they been presented in a 
separate bill, I would have strongly opposed.
  The agricultural policy contained in this conference report is a 
positive step forward for our nation's farmers and rural communities, 
including those I represent in Northwest Oregon. Strong funding 
authorizations for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty 
Crop Block Grant Program will help a wide variety of food producers in 
my district, from blueberry and hazelnut farms to vineyards in the 
world-renowned Willamette Valley wine region. The commitment to pest 
and disease research in the bill is key to a healthy nursery industry 
in Oregon, and the conference report includes language that will allow 
organic producers and Christmas tree farmers to establish check off 
programs that are critical to their long-term success.
  For Oregon's struggling counties, this bill includes an essential 
extension of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. PILT helps 
the budgets of counties with large expanses of un-taxable federal land, 
and its reauthorization in this bill is welcome news to the cash-
strapped rural areas of Oregon. For the environmental community, the 
conference report represents an important commitment to responsible 
farming practices, with crop insurance premium assistance tied to 
conservation compliance measures that will help protect soil quality 
and fragile wetlands.
  Unfortunately this bill comes up short in one vital area: nutrition 
policy. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a pillar of 
this nation's social safety net, providing food assistance to those in 
need, including many seniors and children. I do not support the changes 
to SNAP in this conference report, but they are preferable to the 
previous Farm Bill proposal considered by this chamber, which I voted 
against. Although I am pleased that the bill provides additional funds 
for food banks under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), I 
am troubled by the impact that the SNAP cuts will have on Oregon 
families.
  I will reluctantly support this conference report because the 
investments in our rural communities included in this bill will help 
many of our constituents continue the long climb back from the 
lingering effects of the economic down-turn. We must invest in these 
communities to ensure that still more of our constituents don't come to 
rely on federal assistance programs like SNAP. And despite unfortunate 
cuts to the SNAP program, this bill is a vast improvement on the 
devastating SNAP cuts that the House bill originally contained. 
Congress must now commit to assisting those individuals who rely on 
federal nutrition programs in other ways, and I will continue to work 
with my colleagues on this issue.
  The Farm Bill conference report is far from perfect, but it contains 
several provisions that will benefit Oregonians. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the House on the 
passage of a new farm bill. I know that the Chairman, the Ranking 
Member and many other members of this body have worked diligently for a 
very long period of time to reach this point. I am glad that this body 
has finally passed legislation that can bring some certainty to Iowa 
producers and allow them to plan for their economic futures. While I 
know that we would all agree that this process has taken far too long, 
I appreciate the endless hours of work to bring us to this significant 
accomplishment. I trust the legislation will soon make it to the 
President's desk.
  However, no farm bill is perfect and I would be remiss if I did not 
point out that this bill does not address all of the serious issues of 
concern to the agricultural community. Congress must address the 
serious issues related to Country of Origin Labeling in the meat 
industry. Our livestock producers are quite appropriately concerned 
that they may face trade retaliation from some of our closest trading 
partners if these issues are not properly addressed. There are also 
legitimate concerns regarding USDA's ability to write regulations 
related to the buying and selling of livestock, which are not addressed 
in this farm bill. While I am very pleased with what has been 
accomplished here today, I urge my colleagues to join me in making sure 
that we complete the work on those issues which were not included in 
today's legislation.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, today is a monumental day for our nation's 
agriculture policy. After three years of hard work, today the House of 
Representatives finally approved a final Farm Bill that provides 
certainty for our nation's farmers and institutes money-saving reforms 
to agriculture and nutrition policy that we've needed for some time.
  Agriculture is our top industry in Alabama, employing more than 
580,000 Alabamians. Agriculture alone is worth around $70 billion to 
our state's economy. That is why this bill has been one of my top 
priorities since being elected to Congress in 2010.
  This bill is a win for Alabama farmers and foresters. It is also a 
win for taxpayers. The Farm Bill replaces outdated policies left over 
from the Pelosi-led Congress and represents a positive step toward 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of my Agriculture Advisory 
Panel who have proved so beneficial to my staff and I throughout this 
process. This group includes a representative from each county in 
Alabama's Second Congressional District and representatives from a wide 
variety of commodities and industries. We have held numerous meetings 
in the District to share ideas, listen to concerns, and discuss a way 
forward on agriculture policy. I cannot say enough about how much I 
appreciate these individuals for sharing their time, knowledge, and 
ideas.
  One of the provisions included in this Farm Bill is a direct result 
of a brainstorming session of our Agriculture Advisory Panel. The Farm 
Bill includes a provision to reduce the amount of land allowed into the 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), restricting the increasingly-
frequent practice of paying landowners to let fertile cropland go 
unplanted for years.
  Members of my Agriculture Advisory Panel are: Andy Wendland, Walt 
Corcoran, Kenny Childree, Tom Duncan, Carl Sanders, Andy Sumblin, Josh 
Carnley, Salem Saloom, Ricky Wiggins, Rhett Johnson, Tony Beck, Monica 
Carroll, Albert Curry, Andy Bell, Neil Outlaw, Cindi Fain, Ed White, 
Gary Mattox, Dale Armstrong, George Jeffcoat, Richard Holladay, Hassey 
Brooks, Edwin Marty, John Dorrill, and Ed Berry.
  I also want to mention the hard work of Mike Albares on my personal 
staff who put in countless hours of work to help me through this 
process. Mike, a native of Dothan, is well aware of the importance of 
agriculture to South Alabama, and I appreciate his dedication to our 
local farmers.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank Lucas and his staff for their diligent 
work throughout what has, at times, been a challenging process. I want 
to recognize Ranking Member Peterson and his team for all that they 
have done to work across the aisle to get this bill finished. 
Agriculture policy has almost always been a bi-partisan issue, and this 
final product is no different.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this bill isn't perfect. I would have 
liked to have seen more reforms to nutrition programs, but we will 
continue to work toward that goal. Undoubtedly, the reforms contained 
in this Farm Bill are a major step in the right direction.
  Thank you again to the countless individuals who helped make this 
Farm Bill happen. I look forward to continuing to be a strong advocate 
on behalf of Alabama's farmers.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the Agriculture 
Act of 2014. While I appreciate the work that has gone into the 
crafting of this legislation, and the delicate compromise that this 
bill represents, I will not support the bill before us today because I 
refuse to support a bill that will increase hunger in America.
  Throughout this process I have stood fast with many of my Democratic 
colleagues in strong opposition to attempts by the House majority to 
bleed as much money as possible from the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP). The first draft of the House farm bill, 
which failed, would have cut $20 billion from SNAP. In the next 
iteration of the legislation, the Republican response was to simply 
remove SNAP from the House bill and pass it without a single Democratic 
vote. When a Republican stand-alone nutrition bill finally came up it 
was no surprise that the bill proposed a cut of $40 billion to SNAP.
  The bill before us today would cut $8.6 billion from SNAP. 
Significantly less than the House Republican proposal, but still more 
than twice what was proposed in the Senate farm bill initially. Rather 
than working with Democrats to craft a real strategy to address hunger 
in America, my Republican colleagues are insistent on stripping funds 
from this country's most comprehensive and successful anti-hunger 
program.
  According to the most recent USDA data, about 47 million people 
benefit from SNAP nationally. Last year, on average, 876,266 people in 
New Jersey participated monthly in

[[Page 2178]]

SNAP. In New Jersey's 12th Congressional District more than 40 percent 
of households receiving SNAP have children under 18 and more than 40 
percent have at least one person over 60.
  Since November 1, 2013, these families have been dealing with cuts to 
SNAP benefits because of an expiring provision of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act that had provided for a benefit increase. The SNAP 
cuts we are debating today come from ending a policy called ``Heat and 
Eat.'' New Jersey is one of 17 states that choose to participate in 
``heat and eat'' which can help states improve access to SNAP while 
reducing administrative burdens by allowing states to link a 
beneficiary's receipt of low-income heating assistance to their SNAP 
benefit. What this means is that New Jersey's SNAP beneficiaries will 
be among those principally affected by the changes to SNAP that are 
proposed in this farm bill.
  As a country we must end our obsession with debt and deficits, 
especially when these reductions are coming at the expense of the less 
fortunate and the hungry. This legislation continues to favor the 
largest farmers and agri-business over family farms. The bill achieves 
significant savings by ending direct commodity payments, but then 
redirects these savings to fund new subsidized programs to pay the same 
farmers when crop prices or revenues fall below certain levels--
continuing wasteful programs that benefit the largest farms and agri-
businesses. We should be doing more to find greater savings by 
strengthening caps on commodity support programs and federal crop 
insurance subsidies that, under this bill, continue to enable some of 
the largest farms and agri-businesses to receive millions of taxpayer 
dollars year after year. While the bill moves us towards an 
agricultural safety net based primarily on crop insurance, we fail to 
make any real reforms to the crop insurance system. Agri-business is 
still heavily subsidized while the federal government guarantees very 
favorable profit margins for insurance companies while continuing to 
pick up the tab for all administrative and operating costs.
  While some policy improvements are made for conservation, funding for 
these programs is still cut by about $6 billion dollars as acreage in 
the Conservation Reserve Program is reduced steadily over the next 5 
years. Additionally, the lack of reform to the U.S. sugar program 
threatens manufacturing jobs in New Jersey and around the U.S. This 
program cost taxpayers almost $300 million last year alone, and will 
continue to create artificially high prices for consumers on the foods 
we enjoy every day. New Jersey farmers deserve a better farm bill. If 
we made real reforms to crop insurance and commodity support programs 
we could invest further in conservation, specialty crops, organic 
agriculture, small and beginning farmers, and of course, nutrition.
  Following passage of the House farm bill I urged my colleagues in 
Leadership and in the Agriculture Committee to work towards a 
compromise that would eliminate the SNAP cuts and allow for the passage 
of a farm bill that supports agriculture without hurting hungry 
families. The Agriculture Act of 2014 is a success in many ways. The 
bill ends direct commodity payments to farmers, includes conservation 
compliance for crop insurance, and invests in specialty crops, organic 
foods, and sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, the bill fails to 
complement these policies with a similar investment in the people who 
could use it most, the children, seniors and veterans who rely on SNAP 
for one of the most basic of needs--something to eat.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the farm bill conference 
report because it represented a missed opportunity to enact necessary 
and long-overdue reforms. Supporters of this legislation claim $23 
billion in savings, but by setting commodity target prices at today's 
high prices, independent experts expect that as prices drop, this 
legislation would cost us more in the long run.
  The bill does have some bright spots. The removal of the King 
amendment and the inclusion of language cracking down on animal 
fighting are victories for animal welfare. The SNAP cuts are not as 
draconian as the version that passed the House last year. I am thrilled 
that the amendment I worked on with Representatives Polis and Massie 
easing restrictions on the cultivations of industrial hemp was 
included, which shows we are ready to look at hemp as an agricultural 
commodity, and not a drug. There are welcome investments in renewable 
energy and organics in this bill as well.
  On the whole, however, the bill falls short of enacting necessary 
reforms, and maintains the pattern of cutting SNAP benefits for our 
most vulnerable while spending taxpayer dollars on wasteful agriculture 
subsidies. In Oregon alone, 78,000 households will face cuts to their 
nutrition assistance as a result of this bill, while simultaneously the 
bill adds to the already-bloated crop insurance program and creates 
even more subsidies that benefit large agribusinesses and encourage 
farmers to farm the system, not the land. It continues loopholes that 
allow one farm to claim multiple subsidy payments despite the fact that 
both the House and Senate passed farm bills eliminating these 
loopholes.
  I am also disappointed that this legislation cuts overall funding for 
conservation programs, and fails to enact many important reforms that I 
have put forward in my legislation--the Balancing Food, Farm and the 
Environment Act of 2013--that would strengthen the conservation title. 
I was pleased to see the inclusion of language establishing 
conservation compliance, as well as enactment of a Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program, which will help encourage farmers to 
work together to protect water quality, water supplies or wildlife 
habitat at watershed or regional scales. Overall, however, conservation 
language could and should have gone much further to provide adequate 
funding while optimizing results and making it easier for farmers to 
apply their conservation knowledge to their land.
  On balance this bill represents the minimum effort that enabled its 
passage. It is fiscally irresponsible and continues the alarming trend 
of subsidizing large agribusiness while cutting benefits for our most 
vulnerable Americans. We can and should do better, and I will continue 
working to reform our federal agricultural policies to that end.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 2642, a bill that will starve millions of families and children 
and further add to the economic instability of American families.
  Cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, referred to as 
``SNAP,'' by eight billion dollars ($8 billion) over the next ten 
years, H.R. 2642 will undermine access to healthy food for the many 
children, disabled people, and senior citizens who account for eighty-
three percent of the beneficiaries of the program.
  It is estimated that eight hundred and fifty thousand (850,000) 
households, of which three hundred thousand (300,000) are New Yorkers, 
will lose on average ninety ($90) dollars per month in SNAP benefits.
  While I am glad that the far larger cuts were rejected by the 
Conference Committee, the loss of ninety ($90) dollars per month is 
deeply harmful to these households, which are already teetering on the 
brink of economic catastrophe.
  What are we thinking? We are literally taking the food out of the 
mouths of babes, while continuing to provide generous subsidies to 
large agri-businesses.
  It is for these reasons that I will vote no on this bill and I ask my 
colleagues to oppose this bill with me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 166, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               YEAS--251

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego

[[Page 2179]]


     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--166

     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fattah
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kind
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Amodei
     Campbell
     Clay
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Jones
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Moran
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Tipton
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1059

  Messrs. HIGGINS, HUNTER, ISRAEL, and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of 
California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 31, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to being unavoidably 
detained, I missed the following rollcall vote: No. 31 on January 29, 
2014.
  If present, I would have voted: rollcall vote No. 31--H.R. 2642--
Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 Conference 
Report, On Passage, ``nay.''
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to attending a previously scheduled 
event with President Obama in the 4th Congressional District of 
Maryland, which I have the honor of representing in the House of 
Representatives, I was absent from votes in the House this morning 
(Wednesday, January 29th) and missed rollcall vote 31. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 31 (final passage 
of the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform 
and Risk Management Act of 2013).

                          ____________________