To prohibit foreign military financing to Egypt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and place a statement in the Record because those who get food stamps are not criminals. They are just hungry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.

I am in opposition to this bill for four reasons: hunger is a real problem in the United States; the solution for reducing dependence on government subsidized food programs is full employment, this bill will hurt the poor and most vulnerable in our country and finally the bill is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban.

Finding hungry people in the United States is not hard--they are in every community. The problem is so dire that--September has been declared hunger action month. People in the 18th Congressional District along with people in Congressional Districts around the nation are putting forth an extra effort to raise awareness that 1 in 6 Americans are going without enough food to sustain a healthy life.

Although the United States is considered to be the world's wealthiest nation 14.5 percent or almost 49 million Americans, which includes 15.9 million children face challenges to getting enough to eat.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture 50 million people experience hunger because they have limited access to resources. The type of resources could be adequate or reliable means of transportation to where food can be obtained, or money to buy food.

In the United States 17 million children live in food insecure households. Children with inadequate nutrition are affected by cognitive and behavior development problems. Eating enough to stay alive but not enough to meet nutrition requirements means the body will break down muscle and tissue.

The majority of SNAP recipients which is about 68 percent do not work--they are children, elderly, disabled or those caring for a disabled family member in their home or for a child less than 6 years of age.

Food insecurity is not limited to urban and suburban areas--over 2 million rural households experience food insecurity. The counties in the United States with the highest disproportionately high rates of food insecurity are rural not urban or suburban.

Children in food insecure homes--who do not consume healthy food on a regular basis are more likely to experience irritability, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating.

These children's ability to get ahead in life are demonstratively impacted by food insecurity.

Nutrition does not need reform--we know what foods are nutritious and how much nutritious food should be consumed by each man, woman and child regardless of age must consume each day to remain healthy and productive.

We should pass the American Jobs Act:

If this Congress was serious about work opportunities they would have passed the President's American Jobs Act. The irony is that if the American Jobs Act had become law it would have significantly reduced the numbers of persons in need of food assistance from the government.

Prior to the financial crisis and economic recession, 26.3 million individuals a month on average received SNAP benefits, getting an average of $96 per month in benefits. Over the course of the ``Great Recession'' SNAP spending has increased from $33.2 billion for fiscal year 2007 to $78.4 billion for fiscal year 2012.

The Congressional Budget Office says the weak economy as being the cause of the nearly 65 percent of the growth in spending on benefits between 2007 and 2011. The Congressional Budget Office said in its May 2013 baseline update estimate that SNAP participation would begin to decline as the economy continued to recover, falling to an average of $34.4 million per month.

Adding the words ``Work Opportunity'' is not about work but about how to prevent the working poor from accessing SNAP benefits.

SNAP benefits also help the working poor which includes those who earn 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below l00% of the poverty guideline this translates into incomes of $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013. These households receive about 91% of all benefits.

Unemployment remains at 7.3 percent with about 11.3 million people unemployed. We know that we have 6 million long term unemployed people who have been searching for work 27 weeks or longer. In July, unemployment percentages for the following states were:

Texas 6.5 percent,

California 8.7 percent

Nevada 9.5 percent,

North Carolina 8.9 percent,

South Carolina 8.1 percent,

Rhode Island 8.9 percent,

Tennessee 8.5 percent,

Michigan 8.8 percent,

Arizona 8.0 percent, and

Arkansas 7.4 percent.

In August 2013, there were still 2 million fewer jobs than when the ``Great Recession'' began in 2007. There are still 3 unemployed people for every new job created by the private sector. To compound the problem--60 percent of the jobs lost were mid-wage occupations--people who did not need Federal or State food assistance or housing assistance programs.

These types of mid-wage good paying jobs make up only 22 percent of the new jobs created during the recovery. Low-wage jobs represented 21 percent of the jobs lost at the start of the recession and now make up 58 percent of the new jobs of the recovery. The number of people who are in need of SNAP is greater because the recovery is not as strong as it should be nor reaching the people it should reach.

The bill's version of work opportunity threatens the working poor's opportunity to provide food for their families. Over the last decade the number of households that were working or had no income while receiving SNAP more than tripled, from 2 million in 2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011.

This bill will hurt the most vulnerable:

Having SNAP funds does not guarantee access to nutritious food, according to the Department of Agriculture food deserts make it difficult for urban, suburban and rural poor to find nutritious food. A food desert according to the Department of Agriculture is a ``low- access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery store is more than 10 miles.

Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a result fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.

The result of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support normal metabolic functions.

Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments instead of grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast foods this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for arterial disease a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a constant diet of fast foods are also vulnerable to higher risks of insulin resistance which results in diabetes.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their children can eat.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.

The bill is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban:

The majority seeks to do everything imaginable to make it more difficult for people in this country to get access to affordable healthcare, a job that will pay a livable wage or meals that are nutritious are difficult to understand.

The bill would establish a nationwide ``pilot program'' under which states could impose new work requirements on SNAP recipients, including on parents of young children who are exempt under the current law. It would not be in the best interest of young children for their parents to leave them unattended and it would not be in the best interest of SNAP recipients to choose between rent and childcare.

The language of the bill authorizes states to conduct drug testing of SNAP applicants as a condition of receiving benefits. Since most of the benefits go to children, the elderly and disabled the question of drug testing is more a facade for a political philosophy than a real world problem with drug addiction and Federal and State food programs.

The bill is blatantly anti-urban in calling for a pilot program to reduce retailer fraud be conducted in a large urban area that administers its own SNAP program. Is there a belief that Mayberry exists in every rural area and therefore there could be no possible cases of SNAP fraud?

The bill requires that SNAP recipients receive at least $20 or more in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) before they could receive an increase in SNAP benefits. LIHEAP and SNAP are two different programs and they serve different purposes. LIHEAP helps when homes are not safe or are in need of repairs to make them more safe for human occupation. The problem with this formula is that the funds sent for LIHEAP are not nearly enough for the numbers of persons who need housing repair. The second problem is it would require people who have no need of housing repairs, but who may need additional food assistance to apply for the LIHEAP program, which is already underfunded in order to get what they really need--more food assistance.

This formula will guarantee that people in need of additional assistance under SNAP will never receive it.

The bill before us would prohibit a state from telling someone they know is hungry about SNAP food programs. The bill defines this type of communication as recruiting SNAP participants by advertising the SNAP program.

The bill eliminates the ability of states to waive work requirements for ``certain able-bodied'' SNAP recipients even when unemployment is high. In addition the bill would impose new work requirements on parents of young children.

The bill would restrict ``categorical eligibility'' this would impact people who qualify for other low-income aid.

The bill requires that SNAP benefits be used by beneficiaries within 60 days of being posted to an account. If the benefits are not used then they will be taken back. The reality is people make decisions about where and when to purchase food not based on our schedule but their own.

If they have the benefits then the benefits should be there when the opportunity to go to a store is available to them--which may be more than a 2 to 4 week period.

People who are poor are not criminals and we should stop trying to treat them as if they committed a crime. This bill is right out of the 47% playbook that was defeated last year during the Presidential Election and this bill needs to be defeated as well.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce net SNAP spending by 39 billion over 10 years and that 2.8 million people on average would lose their benefits while 850,000 would see benefits cut.

SNAP benefits help the disabled, which include men and women who have served our nation during times of war. According to news reports, nearly $53 million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible to shop in base commissaries, including disabled veterans.

The use of food stamps in commissaries increased 9 percent from 2012 to 2013, when $99 million in food stamps were used on bases. In addition, military commissaries sold about $31 million under the Women, Infants and Children program in 2012 and nearly $15 million by June of this year.

Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this nation must have to exist and to prosper. Next year if this bill becomes law the nearly $40 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs also known as SNAP that is proposed by this bill 4 million Americans would fall thought our nation's food safety net.

As elected representatives we should see our nation's vital interest. At the core of our vital interest is a stable and thriving economy, a strong and healthy population that is able to contribute to the economic engine that fuels our economy.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bad bill and return the food programs to the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up the bill (H.R. 3102) to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.

As we all know, in July, the House passed a farm bill--farm bill only. This legislation did not include title IV, which consists of the nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Since that time, our Leader Cantor has put together a working group, of which I was a part, to create a bill that better targets Federal nutrition programs to serve those in need of assistance. H.R. 3102 is the by-product of that effort.

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

Let me highlight some of the provisions that make this possible.

First, it incorporates all of the savings and reforms that were in H.R. 1947 that was favorably reported by the House Agriculture Committee in a large bipartisan vote. H.R. 1947 saved more than $20 billion by eliminating categorical eligibility to ensure that States are enforcing the asset and income test in SNAP law. It closed the heat-and-eat loophole to prevent States from sending out $1 LIHEAP checks to SNAP recipients to artificially increase their benefit levels.

It ended the practice of giving States bonuses for responsibly administering SNAP, which is their duty. It tightened restrictions to prevent lottery winners and traditional college students from participating in the program. And it restricted the Department of Agriculture from advertising SNAP on radio and television shows, such as soap operas. The bill we are considering today also incorporates many reforms that were adopted on the floor when the House considered H.R. 1947 in June.

And, finally, the efforts of the working group. This bill includes additional reforms that eliminate a State's ability to waive the current work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. It encourages employment and training by providing cost-share funds to States that adopt provisions under a new work pilot program. And it increases funding for food banks, which have been successful in effectively utilizing government dollars and securing private-sector donations in order to feed hungry Americans.

Ultimately, this bill encourages and enables work participation and makes commonsense reforms, closes program loopholes and eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program, saving the American taxpayer nearly $40 billion.

I will admit to you this has been an unusual process. But it remains my goal to get a 5-year farm bill enacted. I'm doing everything possible to make sure that that happens this year. This is a step toward that goal. It is my hope that we'll pass this bill so the farm bill process will continue. We have a responsibility to get this done. Quite simply, it shouldn't be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all of us in this economy have enough to eat. And that's what a farm bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so the process can continue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), and I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from Michigan knows because he's been a leader in this area, this Congress is committed to ensuring that our Nation's veterans have the support they need to enter successful civilian careers after their military service. This House led by passing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, a comprehensive jobs bill to reduce veteran unemployment by retraining veterans to make them more competitive in today's job market. I'm pleased that the Senate followed our lead and that the VOW Act is now law.

This bill does not target veterans, though I understand the concerns you have raised today. So long as a veteran meets the asset and income test currently in SNAP law and complies with the applicable work requirement, he or she will continue to receive nutrition benefits. As with all disabled adults, veterans who have a physical or mental disability are exempt from work requirements. There are also numerous Federal job training and education programs specifically targeting veterans that spend over $10 billion a year to ensure our veterans can get back to work. Additionally, we currently provide up to 73 weeks of unemployment benefits for veterans in our highest unemployment States.

Even so, I know I speak for the entire Agriculture Committee when I say we are committed to protecting our veterans in a way that honors their service and sacrifice to our Nation, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to make sure that the final conference committee agreement does just that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), one of my subcommittee chairmen.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3102.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the primary subcommittee chairman on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), and I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I am aware of the leadership of Colorado in this area. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Colorado as we move forward with this legislation to ensure that Federal dollars are available to States that actively move people to self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), who's worked very diligently on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have the honor and privilege to yield 1 minute to the majority floor leader of the United States House of Representatives, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), my next-door neighbor from across the State line.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining for both myself and the ranking member?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the ranking member that I potentially have some additional speakers, but they've not made an appearance yet. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time to close if they do not appear.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

My dear colleagues, on several occasions we have alluded to the process that we have gone through now, literally, for years to try to craft a comprehensive farm bill.

I think most of you know that I would have preferred this have been accomplished a year ago. I was proud of the committee work done at the time, done in a bipartisan way. I was proud, even though we had to start over in a new session of Congress, of the bipartisan effort done in the committee this time.

Not every Republican or every Democrat on the committee voted for it; but we had a majority of both sides, something that seems to be kind of difficult these days on a lot of issues. But that bill came to the floor. And even after a number of amendments were adopted by a majority of this body primarily focused on the nutrition title, a majority of the body chose not to pursue that bill, not to allow it to move on. And we were compelled to bring what I affectionately referred to as a farm bill only to the floor, one without the critical title dealing with nutrition, and we were successful in passing that.

But as was noted by many of my colleagues on this side of the room, that left a critical piece out, the nutrition title. And that's the product that we are addressing today. It incorporates all of the efforts--I will repeat again--from the committee work dealing with categorical eligibility and LIHEAP and advertising and all of those things.

The language we deal with today incorporates the amendments adopted by this body in an effort to address the committee bill, empowering States through a pilot program to engage able-bodied individuals in TANF-type work, ending SNAP eligibility for convicted murderers and pedophiles and rapists--not their children, not their spouses, but they, themselves. Language allowing the States to very clearly use drug testing as a part of their SNAP application process was adopted by a majority of the votes on this floor, those items. And now it includes language that came out of the leader's working group, things that deal with what we refer to as ``able-bodied adults without dependents,'' ABAWDs.

That first committee draft, reform to the tune of about $20 billion. Many of the things on the floor would have added to that, perhaps not substantially. And in the working group's language, an additional $20 billion in reform. That presents us with the bill that we're looking at today, with virtually everybody's ideas and reform rolled into one, a substantial amount of savings in a single bill to reform.

I would say this to all of my colleagues: you're going to vote your conscience today. You understand the bill, each and every one of you. You understand, I think from your perspective, the policy implications. I happen to believe that the items in this bill are of sufficient merit to be discussed in a conference committee; potentially, if the conference would agree, to incorporate them in a final conference committee report. But that discussion cannot take place if this bill is not passed.

Remember, if this bill is not passed and we go to conference, there are no instructions for reform from the House in effect. And what was one of the fundamental points that I and my colleagues in the Ag Committee discussed as we started this process a long time ago? There would be reforms in all parts of the next farm bill--commodity title, conservation title, nutrition title. There would be the implementation of changes based on our experiences and our learning from the last farm bill and series of farm bills.

I know you're going to vote your conscience; but I ask you, let me go to conference with the Senate with the maximum number of options to work through because, ultimately, whatever comes out of that conference has to be a comprehensive farm bill. It has to address our ability to raise the food and fiber safety net. It has to address the safety net that affects all of our consumers.

I will simply close by saying this: as I said at the beginning of this debate, it should not be this hard to pass a bill to make sure that the consumers in this country and around the world have enough to eat. It shouldn't be this hard, but everything seems to be hard these days. So let's do the hard things. Let's get our work done. Let's go to conference. Let's put a final bill together. Let's fulfill our responsibilities.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I ask my colleagues in this House, Why are we here today? The original farm bill, H.R. 1947, passed out of the Agriculture Committee with bipartisan support. While this bill eventually died when it came to the floor, I have to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership and desire to work together for the common good of all of the American people.

Today's exercise is nothing more than a waste of our time and an insult to every American in need. The Cantor bill includes the same toxic amendments that derailed the farm bill's passage the first time around. The fact that we are considering this legislation makes me question whether the Republican leadership even wants a farm bill to pass.

The Cantor bill guts nutrition for those most in need and says to the poor, to hungry children, to the disabled, seniors and our veterans, You don't matter. You are not worthy of our help.

They deserve better.

I've heard the stories from my constituents who struggle every month on whether to pay for medicine or food because they cannot afford both. SNAP recipients will already see a reduction in their benefits beginning November 1 when the 2009 Recovery Act temporary benefit boost ends. It will be reduced by as much as $300 per year for some people. That is a staggering amount.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at SNAP purely from a dollars-and-cents standpoint. Earlier this year, I participated in a panel on poverty. One of the young ladies from Witnesses to Hunger said:

People do a lot of talking about us. They refer to SNAP

beneficiaries as statistics. But I'm not a statistic, I'm a

real person struggling to get by.

This bill would abandon 5.7 million people during a time when they need us the most. No one can justify a bill of $40 billion in cuts when 47 percent of all SNAP recipients are children under the age of 18. I cannot justify such cuts when 16.5 percent of all SNAP households include seniors. This bill is more than a sucker punch to those in need. It may be their fatal blow.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just say that I find it's not theatrics that 5,000 Active Duty families would be kicked off of food stamps if this bill passes as it is given to us today.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our assistant Democratic leader.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that the First District of Arkansas, which my colleague represents, has a SNAP recipient percentage of 18.2 percent.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman

from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), one of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the ranking member on the subcommittee that oversees SNAP--who has not called one meeting all year--that he has 10 percent SNAP recipients in his district.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the Agriculture Committee and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. Job training is great, but there is nothing in this bill that ensures any money will go towards job training.

I also want to say that in Mr. Davis' district, 12.8 percent of his residents are on SNAP.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), one of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, yes, Colorado has been a leader, but the bill specifically gives States the ability to spend savings any way they choose.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Negrete McLeod), another one of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.

Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose the proposed cuts offered by H.R. 3102.

As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am greatly concerned that this is a $39 billion cut to our Nation's most powerful antipoverty tool--a tool because each month SNAP helps feed 3.4 million households with elderly individuals.

In 2011, 4.8 million Americans over the age of 60 lacked access to food. Some seniors are already making the decision between food and their medicine. Cuts to SNAP will only intensify the problem, setting seniors into deeper destitution and hunger. I ask the bill's supporters: How will these Americans eat without the means to afford food?

I urge my colleagues to remember the most vulnerable constituents in their States and to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my friend that able- bodied work has always been in the farm bill. What has changed by this bill is that it takes away the opportunities for Governors to request a waiver when their unemployment rate is very high.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Lujan Grisham), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I do consider Mr. Southerland a friend, but I would just say that we cannot pick and choose what we take out of the Bible. The Bible mentions the words ``poor'' and ``hungry'' more than 200 times.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that one in eight Virginians are on SNAP and that able-bodied adults without dependents already work if there is a job. We all know that there are three people for every available job in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, in Mr. LaMalfa's district, 10 percent of all households are on SNAP.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is still left in debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), another of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee.

(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas), another member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 1 minute to our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Lucas, for all of his work on the farm bill.

I want to ask, though, why did we play this charade on the American people today? Why would we use hunger and poverty as a political football, a game, some kind of sport? This is the people's House, so let's do what is best for the American people.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that the time is always right to do what is right. And to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know there's been a lot of arm-twisting to get you to support this bill; but, fortunately, I have many friends on that side of the aisle. And my friends are known to be people who are compassionate, caring patriots. And I implore

you to do what is right. Hopefully, you will all muster the courage to vote your conscience and do what is morally right because if you do it, the others who may not have as much courage as you will follow. You will set them free to do what is right.

It is time to stand up for the American people. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her also for her leadership on this very important issue to the values of our country. Her service on the Agriculture Committee is indeed a blessing to us all as we fight for our children.

Mr. Lucas, thank you for your leadership of the committee, as well. I know you tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. What happened after that, I won't go into. I also want to salute Collin Peterson, our colleague on the committee. We need a farm bill. We want to have a good farm bill for our farmers, for our ranchers, for food security, for our country. Hopefully, we can get to that place, but not by doing violence to our children.

Mr. Speaker, this body is so magnificent because it is so diverse. We represent districts all over the country. We represent people of different backgrounds all over the country. But one thing, among others, that we certainly have in common is that each one of us have people in our districts who depend on the SNAP program for their nutrition. There isn't one person in this room who could rise up and say: Nobody in my district relies on the nutrition programs that are in the farm bill. Chief among them are children, seniors, veterans and their families. They are the real faces of hunger in America, and their stories are the most compelling reason to reject this dangerous Republican legislation.

In my district in San Francisco, people from all walks of life have relied on the SNAP program to make it through tough and trying times. One young woman I want to highlight is Catlin, now in her twenties, worked hard at a

part-time job to put herself through college. As the recession took its toll on students across the country looking for work, Catlin found that she could not afford to pay rent and purchase food each month. Because she qualified for the emergency food SNAP initiative, she was able to get by, get a promotion, and now works full time.

There's Brian, 50 years old and homeless. Even though he searches constantly for full-time employment, he spends his spare time volunteering at St. Anthony's dining room, helping other people. This is a place that helps other people to find food, shelter, clothes, and compassion in our community. There he gives back what little he has to the community, wholeheartedly serving our seniors, veterans, children, and families who also rely on the generosity of people like Brian to feed themselves and their loved ones.

Like Brian and Catlin, millions of people across America are working hard and giving all they have to lift themselves up and help others get on their feet.

One of my colleagues said something like if you don't work, you shouldn't eat. Something to that effect. I hope I heard it incorrectly. It's really important to note that because of the low minimum wage in our country, a family of four, with both parents working full time and earning the minimum wage, are below the poverty line. They don't even come close to the 130 percent of poverty. They are below the poverty line. So in some respects the SNAP program is subsidizing a low minimum wage in our country, as other support does as well.

I wish that we could respect how hard it is for a family of four, with two people working full time, not making enough money to put food on the table, that we respect them for their struggle and for their concern for their families and not judge them that they don't have food on the table because our country has chosen to pay a sub-living wage to so many people in our country.

The Republican proposal on the floor today slashes the legs on which many of these people stand. Indeed, cutting the investments is a full assault on the health and economic security of millions of families. Consider this: one in five children--it is soon becoming one in four-- struggle with hunger, and nearly half of all SNAP recipients are children. Nearly 4 million Americans over age 60 rely on nutrition assistance. Five thousand Active Duty military families depend on SNAP. Nearly 3 million veterans and their families don't get enough to eat each month, and this bill would jeopardize food assistance for as many as 170,000 veterans.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Houston, Texas, visiting my grandchild, and we were at mass. The sermon was a beautiful one and actually the Gospel was that day, too. Many of our colleagues have quoted the Gospel of Matthew, ``When I was hungry, you gave me to eat,'' and other parts of the Bible. The Gospel that day was talking about how we have a responsibility to each other. In the sermon, the priest said something that I think we should consider as we consider our vote here today. He said:

You just can't come to church and pray on Sunday and go out

and prey on people the rest of the week.

This legislation is preying on people, on children, on veterans, on seniors, on all those who are struggling to do their best in our country.

It is our moral obligation to reject this legislation and to preserve these investments for Americans who need them and other Americans who want them to have it. It is our moral duty to vote down this measure and to work across the aisle in conference on a comprehensive farm bill that ensures food security, supports our farmers and ranchers, and strengthens world communities.

``Community''--that should be the word of the hour. What is our responsibility to community? It certainly isn't to say to kids, We want you to do your best in school, but we're not going to fuel your mind by giving you food to eat. And it certainly isn't to thank our veterans by depriving them or our seniors for all that they have done. Something is very wrong with this picture.

I know one thing for sure: every person who votes for this Republican measure is voting to hurt his or her own constituents because we all represent people who at some time need help.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit two articles into the Congressional

Record. The first is an op-ed that I wrote about the importance of federal nutrition assistance that was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The second is a powerful story published in the Star Tribune and written by Sue Bulger, a Minnesotan, whose family uses SNAP benefits.

As Members of Congress, we cannot ignore the harm enacting the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act (H.R. 3102) will have on millions of our fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and instead come together to craft a bill that strengthens SNAP and ends hunger in America.

Congress Must Help Eliminate Hunger

(By Betty McCollum)

For too many Minnesotans, a steady job no longer provides

the guarantee of being able to always afford food for their

family. One out of five children in the United States,

including thousands in Minnesota, lives in a household

struggling to put enough food on the table.

As many families continue to work toward recovery from one

of the worst economic recessions, Congress must commit itself

to helping struggling families make ends meet and providing a

brighter, healthier future for their children.

The Supplemental Nutrition Access Program makes it possible

for more than 45 million low-income families, people with

disabilities and seniors to avoid hunger when times are

tough. Simply put, SNAP helps our most vulnerable neighbors

feed their children and themselves when they would otherwise

run out of food before the next payday.

Working to eliminate hunger should be a bipartisan goal,

but House Republicans have put SNAP on the fiscal chopping

block. In July, Republicans tried to eliminate nutrition

benefits for nearly 2 million Americans, including more than

30,000 Minnesotans, by cutting $20.5 billion from SNAP. That

harmful attack failed to pass the House. Instead of finding a

bipartisan solution to fight hunger, Republicans have decided

to double down on increasing hunger.

On Monday, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-

Okla.) put forward a bill to cut an estimated $39 billion

from SNAP over the next decade. This latest Republican attack

could eliminate benefits for as many as 3.8 million Americans

and force many more struggling families to stretch their

limited budgets even further. It would also cut funding for

SNAP Nutrition Education, which supports nutrition education

and teaches healthy food choices.

SNAP Ed programs help Minnesotans stretch an average daily

food budget of less than $4 to buy and prepare healthy meals.

Hands-on cooking classes and interactive grocery store tours

are offered to help individuals make smart, beneficial

decisions. With less money to spend on groceries each month,

the necessity of nutrition education becomes even more real.

Last month, I attended a Cooking Matters nutrition

education class in St. Paul sponsored by University of

Minnesota Extension and Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry

campaign. Since 2011, more than 1,600 Minnesota families have

been empowered with the skills, knowledge and confidence to

prepare nutritious, affordable meals. These extension classes

are critical to ensure that households can continue putting

healthy food on the table for their children. Studies

demonstrate that children who get enough of the healthy food

they need grow up facing fewer health problems, perform

better in school, lead more productive lives and are less

likely to struggle with hunger as adults. Nutrition education

programs like Cooking Matters are essential to helping

families gain the skills they need.

These GOP cuts will do nothing except increase hunger and

poverty across America. Throughout the summer, I heard from

faith leaders, community advocates, government officials and

other Minnesotans deeply concerned by the Republican efforts

to eliminate SNAP for struggling Americans. The local focus

is on ending hunger. As Patricia Lull, executive director of

the St. Paul Area Council of Churches, put it, ``No more

hungry neighbors!''

SNAP is the most powerful and effective anti-hunger program

for children that exists. To reduce childhood hunger in

Minnesota and across America, we must continue to invest in

SNAP and nutrition education services.

The Republican plan will deny nutrition assistance to

millions of Americans and cruelly increase hunger. Congress

needs to defeat this cruel and immoral proposal. To keep all

our families healthy, strong and hunger-free it is critical

that Congress fully fund SNAP, not cut it.