Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution.

The question really before us today, Mr. Speaker, is plain and simple, and that is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 271?

I have great respect not only for the gentleman from Iowa but for the gentleman from Massachusetts. Yesterday, we sat through a very, very long committee hearing in which we considered over 200 amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee.

I believe that what we have done with the rule that is in reference and is being questioned here on the floor is not only a very fair and bipartisan approach, but we took this actually from the Ag Committee, from the gentleman from Minnesota--the ranking member--and the chairman of the committee, from Iowa, both of whom have not only extensive farm backgrounds but also extensive service here in the House, both as chairmen of the Agriculture Committee, to the people of the United States.

The bill was brought to the Rules Committee on a bipartisan basis. We talked about the amendments that the committee felt were worthy. We worked extensively with the committee and with other committees of jurisdiction. We had Member after Member come to the Rules Committee in a fair and open process. We deliberated. The gentleman from Massachusetts knows that he, in some sense, got some satisfaction with how the process worked.

So, today, what we are here for is, yes, to talk about the amendments--some that were made in order and some which changed policy--but the essence of this is: Are we going to put a point of order against the bill? I think that the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the Rules Committee Report, yes, and the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

I think this is simply an opportunity for my friends to come to the floor in order to allow for more discussion and time--and I respect that. I respect that the gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings as a member of the Agriculture Committee and as a senior member of the Rules Committee, and I respect also those Members of the Democratic Caucus who have strong feelings about some changes that are taking place.

I admire my colleagues. I disagree. I do not believe in any way that there should be any point of order against the bill. I think it's open. I think it's fair. I think it's inclusive. I think it includes a wide- ranging group of ideas and thoughts that are directly germane to the appropriateness of the Agriculture Committee and other committees that have jurisdiction. I think the Rules Committee did an awesome job. I think we did this in a fair and open process. I think our product is good.

How would I characterize it? I think this is a fair rule that made 103 amendments from both sides of the aisle with 53 Democratic amendments and 50 Republican amendments in order. There were a number of bipartisan amendments. It's a fair rule that comes from a good process.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I encourage us to keep moving.

I thank the gentleman and respect the gentleman, and he knows this. We have been dear friends for many years on this committee. I know he wants more time, and I respect that.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution if necessary, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct. There is an amendment that was presented at the Rules Committee that has been made in order that essentially does what the gentlewoman says, and she'll have a

chance to vote for it or against it. What it says is the amendment ends eligibility of food stamps for those convicted who are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

So the gentlewoman and every Member of this body today will have a chance to say on record that it's okay if you're a convicted rapist, pedophile, or murderer, that it's okay for you to be eligible for food stamps in a program that does compete against mothers and children who, in these difficult times, you're seeing the Agriculture Committee try and set priorities about who should receive this government assistance.

This amendment has not been accepted yet, but every Member of this body will be able to help prioritize; and the amendment that the gentlewoman speaks of is about whether we will let rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, who are convicted felons, continue to receive food stamps. The gentlewoman is right. And today she will get her chance to help us prioritize these government programs about who should be receiving food stamps in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman for coming down to the floor, and I want to respond to the gentleman that what this bill is about is trying to make decisions about what we're going to do in difficult times.

There are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed as a result of the policies that President Obama has placed on this country. Millions of people cannot find work today. There are millions of people across this country who are denied opportunities because the job market out there is not growing. We're seeing rules and regulations. What is known as ObamaCare is causing employers to back away from hiring people. There is the President's inability to make a decision about a simple, most publicized and most looked-at pipeline that would employ thousands of people in this country and us use energy from our friends.

The President's inability to lead is what is causing this country to have massive unemployment and a GDP rate of about 1.5 percent. It is a nightmare for people.

So I do understand that we have those in our midst who are in trouble. I don't think this bill is ever aimed at, and we shouldn't try and say that it would be aimed at, the disabled or mothers with children. That's not what we're trying to accomplish here.

What we're trying to accomplish is to end the eligibility of food stamps for rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, those that compete against needy families. That's why you see members of the Democratic Party coming down here today saying we're going to take it away from other people. No. Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

Furthermore, under the current law, people who receive as little as $1 in energy benefits, $1 in State benefits, automatically qualify for SNAP payments.

This legislation that we're talking about today says if you're going to give away a Federal benefit, the State has to have some skin in the game. You can't just give away something that comes from somewhere else. This legislation closes the costly loopholes that have been out there. And without reform, you're going to continue to see dead people, illegal immigrants, lottery winners, and others who are still eligible for SNAP. That is what we are doing as we reform this bill today. We are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do to save the system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he has any further speakers or if he believes that we have now gotten to the end of this opportunity?

And I believe I have the right to close. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts for furthering his feelings that he wants to talk about this. It is true, there will be people dropped off the rolls. We're having to make decisions based upon money. There's a vote today--it has not been decided--whether rapists, pedophiles, or murderers will be eligible. Also, whether we will have people have to qualify on their own as opposed to some other consideration maybe that a State would put. And we're going to take off those who are lottery winners, illegal aliens, and people quite honestly who should have the money to pay for these things. That's what we're doing today. So in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business, which we're trying to do today, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for not only their vigorous support for the things that they believe in today on this important bill but also for their consideration, participation, and bipartisanship yesterday as the Rules Committee considered this important bill.

I believe it is important what we are doing in the House. I think doing our work on a bipartisan basis should draw the attention of the President of the United States, who has said he will veto this bill, veto the bill before we even see what it looks like. I think that we should understand that what we are trying to do is work together. So, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts, my very dear friend, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, we've already had a lot of discussion about this awesome farm bill that comes to us today. H. Res. 271 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1947. This rule provides for discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and majority, both Republicans and Democrats who represent 700,000 people back home, to come together with their thoughts and ideas about how to make our farm policies and the things which are included in this bill even better, sustainable, and moving forward so that we can know that we have done our job.

This week, 230 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. The rule before us today provides for consideration of 103 of those amendments, 50 Republican and 53 Democrat or bipartisan amendments.

Many of the amendments submitted were duplicative, some violated the rules of the House, and several were nongermane. Given the universe of the amendments the committee received, I believe that this rule allows the House to debate each and every important

issue contained in the bill and provides this body with an opportunity to work its will.

Despite the large number of amendments submitted, I believe the underlying legislation, H.R. 1947, is a strong and meaningful statement and measure that provides our Nation with agriculture and nutrition policy necessary to meet the needs of this country.

And I want to commend, in particular, the young chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Collin Peterson), who have worked together over the years, not just the time when Mr. Peterson served as chairman of the committee, but also throughout the years that Mr. Lucas has worked in a bipartisan basis together, the committee, to work on agriculture policy.

Their hard work over the past several years has led us to the point where we are today. Hard work, working together, thinking, talking about the policy that would be good for the country--that's where we are today.

We follow that up with an opportunity to make sure, on a bipartisan basis, that I work together with my colleague, my colleagues at the Rules Committee. Notwithstanding Ms. Slaughter was busy on the floor a lot of the time yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) sat in, heard the amendments with the rest of the Rules Committee. We worked together, staffs, to try and make as many amendments in order that would create an opportunity to follow the leadership set by Mr. Peterson and Chairman Lucas.

So this year's FARRM Bill reforms our Nation's agriculture programs to provide American farmers with innovative risk management tools. It reforms our Nation's supplemental nutrition programs for the first time in nearly two decades, and it invests in meaningful conservation programs to ensure that future generations of Americans benefit from the same resources that we do today.

The bottom line is the top soil, that top soil that is in America, which is the greatest in the world, enables our farmers and ranchers to produce goods and services, food that serves the entire world. And I am proud of supporting those people who live a way of life in a rural area. I know them well, and I respect the hard work and what they do to make our country stronger and better.

Impressively, H.R. 1947 accomplishes all of this, while making difficult decisions on saving over $40 billion over the life of the bill. This legislation is common sense. This legislation is bipartisan.

This legislation allows us, through an amendment process, to make many tough and difficult decisions based upon representation of this House of Representatives about issues because we're re-looking at the entire FARRM Bill.

Most of all, I hope it's fiscally responsible for those. And we offer solutions, solutions to not only consumers, but also solutions to farmers about how we are going to keep their products and services, farmers and ranchers, families, rural communities and consumers all in a balance to where we know that, through the leadership of this House of Representatives, that we have done our job.

That is why we're here today. We're here to take on tough decisions. We're here to make this FARRM Bill better, and I am proud of the product that we present today.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I support the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can certify that at no time during this process have we vilified any poor people. We're here to help them. The Republican Party cares very much about families and children, moms who are trying to make a go of it.

We're the ones that are up here trying to lower taxes on everybody. We're the ones that are trying to make sure we've got jobs for people. We're the ones that are making sure that we're trying to take pedophiles and rapists and murderers off the rolls of government assistance so that it would serve those who need it the most.

We're trying to help prioritize and save this system. That is what Republicans are trying to do.

We would never vilify those that are disabled, or who are seniors, or who are men and women who richly deserve the opportunity for the government to help them.

But likewise, we believe that those who are able-bodied, those who really should be getting up during the day and trying to go find work do not take government assistance.

We are very concerned about the rights of seniors, about the rights of women, particularly women that have children, and about children and about the disabled. I work very extensively as a Republican with other Republicans and with Democrats on a bipartisan basis to make sure that we're looking at those needs of disabled people. So, I think it would be unfair to say, Well, this bill is aimed to vilify the people that we're intending to help, and that's why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is from Gainesville, Florida, and was a large animal vet. He understands a lot, not just about agronomics, but also about the men and women who take care of this country in agriculture, people who spend their lives there, people who have to take care of their animals and, day in and day out, the needs that it takes to make sure that we have the best farms and ranches in America, animals who are safe and consumers that get a good deal.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Yoho.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming down and speaking. She was at the Rules Committee yesterday and really sat for a long period of time in order to have her ideas taken up by the Rules Committee. As she knows, she's going to get a vote on what she spoke about today. It's not in there yet. She'll have a chance. This body will have a chance to determine whether we're going to go one direction or the other.

What drives the behavior of all this is very interesting. We're trying to work with, on a high level, something that's going to happen again soon in this next cycle starting at the end of September, and it is called sequestration--again, President Obama's idea of sequestration--which will cut $85 billion more across the board, and the entire government is struggling with how we're going to make these changes.

Our GDP is at less than 1 percent. Twenty-five million people are unemployed and underemployed. We're working with the policies of the Democratic Party that are bankrupting this country.

There are people who are hurting. There are people who need jobs, who need food, need to take care of their families, and need to take care of paying their student loans. This House of Representatives is on the mark of saying how we should solve each and every one of these problems.

They essentially go back to when Republicans had control of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the Presidency. For 60 straight months there was sustained, ongoing economic growth. Oh, my gosh, that was under George Bush. Well, that's right. President Bush and Republicans helped this country to achieve a doubling of GDP, of moving our country forward.

But there's also another model of success out there, and it was called President Clinton, who came and worked with the House of Representatives, who took Republican ideas, who took the ideas which we put and merged them with his own--probably called them his own--but moved this country forward. Instead, today we have leadership of our country that says no, no, no.

We've passed bipartisan legislation--cybersecurity. What's the President's answer? No. We've come today with bipartisan legislation from two stalwarts, men who have served this great Nation in the Agriculture Committee for years of service, bringing them together with the best ideas to try and formulate a policy.

Today, there will be examples of people who can control the destiny of these ideas. One is about trying to take rapists, pedophiles, and murderers off the rolls. Another that says we are not going to allow those that have won the lottery to be able to continue receiving food stamps. That's how this bipartisan bill is being crafted and worked together. And every Member of this body will have a chance to vote on the final direction that we go through amendments that were made in order by the Rules Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the young gentleman from Austin, Texas, that he'll have a chance to vote on this, and then we can make a determination. But it's pedophiles, murderers, rapists, those who should have enough money not to have government assistance, that's what we're trying to do here. And he'll have a chance to decide that today.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Taylorsville, Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of the Ag and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire about the time remaining on both sides, please, sir.

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

The gentleman from New York, who is a very dear friend of mine, spoke very eloquently about this bill.

I will tell you that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, is designed to ensure that the neediest Americans are able to help themselves with food for themselves and their families. I care very much about people who are disabled seniors and those who are having problems.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Member who did not think that reforming this program is also the right thing to do. This program was reformed in the Agriculture Committee. That's the text that we are bringing here today--Republicans and Democrats together working together, looking at the problem, and trying to make sure that prioritization is done.

They also recognize this: in the past decades, SNAP payments, otherwise known as food stamps, have increased by almost 300 percent; 300 percent is non-sustainable. A 300 percent increase puts huge responsibilities on public policy.

This is why Republicans have been offering ideas, and we continue to, about jobs and job growth. This is why Republicans see the terrible plight that the American family and the American people are having in trying to have jobs that are available in their hometown. And this goes to the responsibility of all elected officials, not just Members of Congress, but mayors and Governors and Senators and, Mr. Speaker, Presidents, people who are elected officials who need to understand that increasing food stamps by 300 percent over 10 years should be a national disgrace.

We're not trying to take advantage of those who are on it. They're on it because they cannot find work, they cannot find an opportunity because of public policies that make work harder to find because of rules and regulations out of this body and the Federal Government that are creating circumstances on employers to where they don't go employ people. We've talked about this for years. We said when we got into ObamaCare, this will cause a tremendous loss of jobs. The CBO--we're talking about this organization CBO--predicted the same thing.

Well, by golly, we can look ahead and see exactly where Europe is. Europe is going through what is a tragedy where young people cannot find jobs. It is an international disgrace. You see riots across Europe, and have.

Mr. Speaker, we better be smart enough to recognize that we better reform our policies, not just in agriculture policies but economic policies; economic policies that help people, sure, to get an education, but then a thriving marketplace, not just through trade but also through policies of this country.

Our leaders--Members of Congress, Governors, Vice Presidents, Presidents, and Senators--need to focus on this. We need jobs, we need job creation. We need the opportunity for every Member of Congress to understand how jobs are formulated, how jobs are then formulated, created, and then saved.

We've got a group of people that are in Washington that I think fail to look at the ramifications of long-term unemployment to our country. They, I think, are more interested in what we are going to do for people who are having tough times.

So I'm not here to vilify people. I'm here to say I suffer with you because I know them all over our country. I've seen them, not just in Taylorville, Illinois, but across this country.

What we are doing here today is bigger than just SNAP. It's larger than just the agriculture bill. It is how are we going to create a public policy that we involve all elected officials to understand about jobs, job creation, rules and regulations, and that we do not follow Europe; that we admit that Europe is the problem, not the answer; that we go back to the American Dream, the formulation of hard work, the formulation of creation of jobs and, yes, I'll say it, even people making money so they can employ more people and give more wages.

The free enterprise system, that's really the underpinning of what this whole argument is about today; a creation of a policy in this country that is about helping people that need help and about creating economic opportunity for a vast number of other people and making our country and the American Dream work. That's what the Republican Party is for. That's why we're here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that the House will be considering today as a result of amendments, ideas, that have come to the committee--some that are in the bill and some that are amendments against the bill. I'd like to, if I can, speak on one of those amendments at this time.

This amendment is amendment No. 194, and it is offered by the gentleman who is the former chairman of the committee and who is now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is cosponsored by a number of Members of this House, including the gentleman Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Chris Collins of New York, Mr. Moran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Polis, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Lee, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Issa, and me.

The essence of what this is all about is that it would repeal the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. This program serves as a supply- and-control mechanism which distorts the private markets through which government intervention takes place and which unnecessarily fixes prices. As a result, American families pay higher prices for milk products, and American dairy exports are unnecessarily limited.

This amendment which I speak of, No. 194, known as the ``Goodlatte amendment,'' would replace the stabilization program with a voluntary margin insurance program, allowing producers to effectively manage their risks without unnecessary government intervention. It is government intervention that will simply raise prices for consumers.

It's an important amendment, and it has drawn a lot of attention. I would like to stand up and offer my support since I will not be here probably for the discussion of the bill at the time that the amendment comes up. I lend my support because I think this is one of the most critical piece parts to putting the free market together with the opportunities for reducing cost, bettering the services and products that are available, and helping keep America in the export market to where we are more competitive in the world marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, free market amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida. I do resemble that remark. I helped put this bill together, and I'm proud of it. We did it on a bipartisan basis.

We also did it in a way to try and encourage a marketplace that will become more vibrant, that will ensure that farms and farmers and families and rural areas will not only survive tough times, but be able to see an advantage for working hard.

People who are farmers and ranchers get up early and go to bed late. They represent the people of our country. They are the bedrock of not just men and women and their children who go serve in our military, but they're people who care about basic American values.

In a larger sense, what this FARRM Bill is doing is trying to find a way in its place in all of the policy that we do to take care of people properly in this country who are the neediest, but to also ensure that we prioritize it.

There are a lot of people that are my friends that are Democrats that talk about how this country is a rich and powerful country. Well, we're not as rich or as powerful as we used to be. In the last 5 years, we've diminished not only in stature and power, but in employment. We are falling behind because of policies in Washington, D.C.

This bill is about empowering people that are in real live America. They call it flyover country. It's to help people--farmers, ranchers, communities--to deal with these issues. We're for job creation and job growth.

The larger message is that we need jobs in this country. Let's not just take this as just an isolated incident to say just the FARRM Bill, but also the creation of jobs and job creation. There are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. The GDP is less than 2 percent, where literally our country is not growing to sustain the newest generations of Americans who go to school, who go to college or to technical school, who come out and want to have a bright future. We are becoming more like Europe. We're becoming where we're beholden to a government that's bigger and more powerful and

one which drives entrepreneurship and individual responsibility out of the way. It's some of these policies that have led to a 300 percent increase in people who are on food stamps over the last 10 years.

We're trying to deal with the problem. I think we're going to do it in a bipartisan way, and I have confidence this bill is on the right pathway. Some may oppose that, and some may not like the bill. I respect that. I respect the gentlewoman from Florida. But I do resemble that remark, and I think our product is good.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in fact the gentlewoman is correct, the Speaker of the House, Speaker Boehner, did make a public statement, and he did indicate that we would be open for business at the Rules Committee. I have attempted to do everything necessary and proper to make sure that not only a fair hearing was held, but that all the people who would choose to come and make an amendment available, that the committee was available. We listened. We asked tough questions. We did. But we asked questions that I considered to be fair.

I don't think one witness was discouraged at all from taking all the time they needed but respected that we had some 200 amendments to go through. We did not rush. We took our time. We were very deliberative. We worked with the committee on a bipartisan basis. We consulted others, and we received feedback, and we have a model that I believe many people, if you came to the Rules Committee yesterday, would say they received a fair hearing. Good process.

I'm for this bill. I think it is fair. I think it is balanced. I think it is a good representation of what I'm willing to put my name on as a product to present to this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm down to the bare minimum time I have left, and I'm going to reserve my time to close. I will close whenever the gentleman is prepared to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, is most kind. He is most kind in not only how he presented his ideas today, and perhaps even some opposition, and I respect that. I respect him for not only standing up almost every day I see him for not just what he believes in, but caring about people.

My party cares about people, too. The Republican Party cares very much for people, not only those who have fallen on tough times but those who are friends and neighbors, and those who we don't know who live in our communities who are hurting, who are actually having tough times feeding their kids, finding work, paying student loans, and getting things done in their community that will better their community, following the guidelines that they always have about how tomorrow will be a better day for America and Americans. These are tough times.

But what we've done, and our mission today, is to take a farm bill that passed out of the committee that is very equally divided 36-10. This committee that looked at not just the policy on farm policy but has held hearing after hearing around this country, some 40 hearings over the last few years on the farm bill, to get it prepared and ready for this floor, to prepare it for the Rules Committee where both Republican and Democrat members of that committee came and thoughtfully presented their ideas, offered support for the bill once again that passed 36-10 in committee, and moved new ideas and allowed new ideas to be debated on this floor.

Look, not every amendment was made in order. I admit that. Did I want that as a goal to get closer? You bet I did.

But we allowed the debate and the opportunity up at the Rules Committee and then are trying to craft a bill that is in line with what the crafters wanted from farm policy. They're the people that understand this best. They're the people that know the impact.

And so I'm proud of the product. I think we've bettered it. I think we made it better up in the committee. I think we made it better here. And the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, is a part of that process.

As chairman of the Rules Committee, I have the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the mark that we make, that the presentation that we put on this floor and, most of all, that the legislation that allows full debate and content is important.

So, look, what we're going to do is try and worry about a new farm bill that we can move forward. I am supporting this bill. I hope we'll vote on the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 271.

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same Act. House Resolution 271 states:

All points of order against amendments printed in part B of

the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en

bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.

Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 that this rule may not be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Texas.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Let me thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak in support of an amendment that I and dozens and dozens of other Members have authored to repeal the SNAP cuts, to repeal the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in SNAP that will result in 2 million people losing the benefit, and hundreds of thousands of children losing a free breakfast or lunch at school. That cut is too much. It is too harsh. It is a deal breaker for many of us when it comes to the farm bill.

What we should be about in this House of Representatives is to improve the quality of life for people, lift people up, not put people down, and these cuts put people down. We can do much better.

Again, I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and look forward to more debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Sessions and thanking the staff on the Rules Committee, both the majority and the minority, for their hard work in trying to put this rule together.

I want to commend Chairman Sessions, in particular, I think, for making an honest attempt of trying to include as many amendments as possible. There are over 100 amendments that have been made in order, and I appreciate the fact that so many amendments were made in order, and many Democratic amendments were made in order.

Unfortunately, some important amendments were not made in order, which means that those of us on this side of the aisle, I think, will have to oppose this rule. And I certainly also want to make it clear that I oppose the underlying bill as it is now written.

But before I explain why I oppose the FARRM Bill, let me begin also by commending Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson and their staffs for all their hard work in crafting this legislation. It is no easy task, and they have done their best to thread a very small needle.

I'm honored to be a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I want to support a farm bill. I believe this Nation needs a farm bill. And, indeed, this bill contains a number of good things.

I'm pleased that the bill includes an amendment that I offered in committee to close a loophole in Federal animal-fighting laws that allow spectators at animal fights to avoid prosecution.

I support the dairy program in this bill and believe that it would be good for dairy farmers in the Northeast, who are such an important part of our economy.

But I cannot and I will not support this FARRM Bill as it is currently written. I cannot support a bill that cuts the SNAP program by $20.5 billion.

I cannot support a bill that will force 2 million Americans to lose their benefits.

I cannot support a bill that throws over 200,000 American children off the free school breakfast and lunch program. In short, I cannot support a bill that will make hunger in America even worse than it already is.

Right now, as we speak, as we gather here, there are 50 million hungry Americans; 17 million of them are children. Many of them work but do not earn enough to make ends meet. All of us, every single one of us in this Chamber, should be ashamed by those numbers.

Food is not a luxury; it is a basic necessity. But there isn't a single congressional district in America that is hunger-free.

Ending hunger in America used to be a bipartisan issue. To my Republican friends, I say, remember the work of people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson, who dedicated themselves to this issue. Be proud of that legacy; don't dismantle it.

And to my fellow Democrats, I say, if we do not stand for helping the poor and the hungry, then what are we doing here?

There are all sorts of nice little deals in this bill for all sorts of people. Peanut growers get a nice deal; cotton growers get a nice deal. Even sushi rice producers get a really nice deal for some reason.

But poor people in America, hungry people, get a raw deal. It is a rotten thing to do to cut SNAP by $20.5 billion. It's a lousy thing to do to throw 2 million people off this program.

I will have an amendment later in this process to restore these cuts to SNAP in a way that not only reduces subsidies to big agribusiness, but actually reduces the deficit by an additional $12 million beyond the base bill. So I would urge any of my colleagues who are concerned about deficit reduction to support my amendment.

You know, we hear a lot of rhetoric about waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP program even though SNAP has an incredibly low error rate. I promise you that if our defense programs had the same error rate as SNAP, we would save billions and billions and billions of dollars.

I'm going to have more to say about my amendment during its consideration, but I would urge my colleagues to take a look at it and support it.

I'd also like to take a moment to ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel to provide modest, but important, reforms to our international food aid programs. This amendment will enable more people to benefit from our scarce U.S. dollars, while ensuring that U.S. commodity producers and shippers remain actively engaged in alleviating hunger around the world.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the rule makes in order several,

quite frankly, mean-spirited amendments that do nothing but demonize the poor and make their lives even more difficult. I urge my colleagues to oppose those amendments, oppose this rule, and oppose the underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds.

I would just say to the gentleman in response, the Congressional Budget Office--not me, but the Congressional Budget Office--says that these cuts would throw 2 million people off of SNAP and over 200,000 kids off the free breakfast and lunch program. I assure you that people will lose food over these cuts. This is not something we should do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that the $20.5 billion worth of cuts in SNAP are not about taking rapists, pedophiles, and murderers off the rolls. This is about going after poor people. And it is curious that we have an amendment to go after rapists, pedophiles, and murderers who are not SNAP, but those who receive crop insurance, not those who receive agricultural subsidies. I mean, it's incredible what's going on here.

I'd also say to my colleague that it was the Republicans' idea to have sequestration; it was Republicans in this House that passed sequestration. But I'm going to give you credit that at least SNAP was exempted; it was exempted from sequestration and from Simpson-Bowles because it was thought that to balance the budget on the backs of poor people who have nothing was a rotten and cruel thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I appreciate his courtesies in the Rules Committee yesterday, but I have to object to the way he is kind of characterizing those people who are on SNAP. Demonizing and stereotyping people who are on SNAP as somehow rapists, pedophiles, and murderers is just plain wrong. It's just wrong. Please don't do that.

These are people who are law-abiding citizens, they are good people, and they've fallen on hard times. Millions and millions and millions of these people work for a living but they earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP. I have to interject that because these people don't deserve to be demonized, they deserve a helping hand.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert in the Record a letter to the New York delegation from Governor Andrew Cuomo opposing these cuts in the farm bill.

State of New York,

Executive Chamber,

Albany, NY, June 13, 2013.

New York Delegation: It is well known that the importance

of the Farm Bill goes beyond New York's agriculture industry

and conservation efforts. The Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP), within the Nutrition Title, is a

program that helps struggling New York families put food on

their table. SNAP is one of the most effective anti-poverty

components of the nation's safety net. Approximately 3.1

million New Yorkers utilize SNAP to buy groceries. As the

Farm Bill moves toward enactment, I urge you to fight to

protect the integrity of SNAP, its current streamlined

administrative requirements and program benefit levels.

Specifically, I urge you to maintain the successful ``Heat

and Eat'' state option. In New York, more than 300,000

households currently participate in the program. In New York,

when a SNAP household is also eligible for Low Income Home

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), the State deems that

household eligible to have the Heating and Cooling Standard

Utility Allowance (HCSUA) used in their benefit calculation,

and usually results in a higher SNAP benefit for the

household. It is critical to maintain the ability to

predicate eligibility for the HCSUA on eligibility for and

anticipated receipt of the LIHEAP benefit. Both the House and

Senate bills restrict the states' ability by requiring SNAP

households to be in actual receipt of the LIHEAP benefit. If

the state option is restricted as written, these households

will see their benefits decrease by roughly $90 per month.

Congress should allow New York to continue this innovative

strategy to deliver benefits, which reduces administrative

costs, instead of increasing the administrative burden on the

State, which ultimately requires more resources.

In addition, I urge you to preserve the Broad-Based

Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) option that is slated for

elimination in the House bill. Households which receive

benefits through the Temporary Assistances for Needy Families

(TANF) block grant, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or a

state-run low-income general assistance program are

categorically eligible for SNAP. Since 2000, New York has

been able to use BBCE to eliminate the duplicative and time-

consuming requirement that households who already met

financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income

program go through another financial eligibility

determination in SNAP.

Eliminating BBCE will force the state to revert back to

requiring a separate asset limit for SNAP, with a threshold

of $2,000 ($3,000 for elderly)--unchanged since 1986. This

outdated threshold will disqualify applicants even though

they meet the same extreme poverty requirements other safety

net programs. Many low-income New Yorkers, particularly the

elderly and working households, would no longer be eligible

for SNAP.

These groups tend to have assets, such as a small savings

account which, though putting over the asset threshold, is

not a true indication of their poverty status. Eliminating

BBCE will result in the elderly and children in low-income

working families going without the food assistance upon which

they depend.

Furthermore, BBCE is an example of good public policy that

has both streamlined administrative requirements and reduced

payment error rates to the lowest of any federal program.

Without BBCE, states would be forced to waste critical

resources in order to allocate staff time to duplicate

enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their

computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and

retraining staff.

In addition to the above cuts, the House bill would cut $11

million in funding from the SNAP Employment and Training

program (E&T). The Senate bill would preserve the current $90

million funding level until FFY 2018, when it would cut the

funding by $10 million. New York serves more than 150,000

individuals through SNAP E&T, which provides sorely needed

job preparation and job placement services for SNAP

participants. This funding is the only available targeted

federal support to enable SNAP participants to engage in

these services, which ultimately provides a path to

employment, financial stability, and a reduction in SNAP

costs for federal government.

The solution to lowering the cost of the SNAP program is

not reducing enrollment numbers by restricting eligibility

and cutting benefit levels. SNAP is a safety net program in

the truest sense of the word; there is no other more

fundamental human need than food. There is never a good time

to cut SNAP benefits or pass burdensome unfunded mandates,

but I respectfully suggest that doing so during a period of

economic insecurity, it would be especially harmful to our

most vulnerable citizens.

SNAP's low payment error rate--3.8 percent--shows us that

benefits reach those who are truly struggling, and it is not

a program filled with individuals ``gaming'' the system as

many incorrectly proclaim. Cutting benefits and making the

program more restrictive may help lower deficits in the short

term, but it will prolong the struggle for the millions of

New Yorkers who still feel the impacts of the worst recession

since the Great Depression.

A Farm Bill is critically important to New York's

recovering economy, but those still beaten down by the

recession should not be denied basic food assistance. As a

fellow New Yorker, I urge you to not support House and Senate

Farm Bill provisions that will decrease benefit levels and

limit future eligibility.

Sincerely,

Andrew M. Cuomo,

Governor.

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points to some of the things the gentleman from Texas said.

He talked about the increased numbers of people who are on SNAP. The reason why is that we've had a difficult economy. We've had the worst recession since the Great Depression. Lots of people lost work, and lots of people are underemployed right now, so that's why. The CBO tells us that, as we look to the future and as the economy gets better, the number of people on SNAP will go down. So this is there for people who have fallen on hard times. That's why the numbers have increased, and they're going to go down.

The gentleman says that this bill somehow represents reform. This is not about reform. When you come up with reforms, we deliberate. In the Agriculture Committee, in the Subcommittee on Nutrition, do you know how many hearings there were on SNAP? Zero. None. In the full committee, do you know how many hearings there were on SNAP? Zero. None. Then the language appears in the bill that we have before us during a markup.

If you really want reform, you have to listen to people, and you have to deliberate. That's what hearings are for. We have to reach out and figure out how to make this program better. I'm all for making this program better, but that's not what this is about, so let's not have anybody be under the misimpression that this is about reform.

This really is about trying to find an offset to be able to pay for all of the other things and to try to use this to help kind of balance the budget. We're not going after the big agribusiness, and we're not going after crop insurance. What we're doing is going after poor people. They don't have super PACs, and they don't have big lobbyists down here, so there are no political repercussions. That's what this about.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter to the Congress from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, which opposes the cuts that are contained in the FARRM Bill.

Office of the Governor,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Boston, MA, May 30, 2013.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leaders Pelosi, Reid and

McConnell: As you continue your work on the 2013 Farm Bill, I

write to ask that you consider the importance of the

following priorities, which, while not an exhaustive list,

will help ensure that we continue to provide the most

vulnerable Americans with access to healthy and affordable

food, as well as strengthen our many diverse farms that are

integral to the Commonwealth.

In Massachusetts, over 880,000 individuals are served by

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 40

percent of who are children. SNAP helps lift families out of

poverty and works to bridge the gap so that struggling

Americans can put food on the table. I urge you to protect

the overall integrity of SNAP and refrain from restricting

eligibility, reducing benefits or funding for this critical

program. Specifically, I urge you to protect the highly

successful Heat and Eat state option. In Massachusetts over

125,000 households currently participate in this program and

if it were eliminated they would see a decrease of about $70

per month in their SNAP benefits. Eliminating or placing new

burdensome requirements and restrictions on this successful

state option will simply lead to increased food insecurity

for more of our most vulnerable residents.

In addition, households receiving benefits through a

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant

are currently categorically eligible for SNAP. A proposal in

the House bill would restrict this categorical eligibility.

Many low-income individuals, particularly the elderly, would

no longer be eligible for SNAP. This population is already

under represented because they are either unaware they are

eligible for SNAP benefits or too proud to apply. This change

will result in many elders going without the food assistance

they need and deserve.

I agree that program integrity is important for SNAP. Your

committees can emphasize the importance of program integrity

by increasing the percentage of administrative costs

reimbursed by the federal government for those states, such

as Massachusetts, that invest in efforts to improve program

integrity, such as in data sharing and mining software

designed to identify household composition, income, assets

and participation in other public assistance programs.

As we continue to combat childhood obesity and the

increased risk of diabetes, we should do all we can to

promote and provide access to fresh fruits and vegetables for

our SNAP families. I therefore also urge you to authorize

appropriate funding to promote the acceptance of EBT in all

farmers' markets and other non-traditional produce vendors.

Bay State farmers have averaged $490 million in cash

receipts and employ over 12,000 workers across hundreds of

thousands of acres of farmland in active production. In

Massachusetts, approximately 80 percent of our farms are

family-owned, making it all the more important to maintain an

inventory of farmland for future generations. For this

reason, I urge you to authorize robust funding for

conservation programs in the 2013 Farm Bill, including the

Farms and Ranchland Protection Program, which has helped the

Commonwealth preserve and protect nearly 14,000 acres of

farmland. I also urge you to provide adequate mandatory

funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,

which helps our farmers plan and implement conservation

practices to improve soil, water, plant and related

resources, as well as Conservation Innovation Grants, which

have directly assisted the implementation of over 100 farm

energy projects in Massachusetts, saving hundreds of

thousands of dollars.

Further, programs funded under the Energy Title have been

critical to helping Massachusetts farmers and rural business

owners

lower their energy bills through renewable energy

installments and energy efficiency improvements. I urge you

to authorize robust funding for the Rural Energy for America

Program to help our farms continue to make key energy

improvements. Since 2009, REAP has helped to fund 44 biomass,

solar, energy efficiency and wind projects in rural areas of

Massachusetts.

The dairy industry generates over $50 million in cash

receipts from milk and other dairy product sales in

Massachusetts. Small dairy farms, which predominate in

Massachusetts, are particularly vulnerable to changes in the

dairy industry, such as the wide fluctuation in market prices

of milk and animal feed. At times, such market fluctuations

drive down the price of milk while simultaneously driving up

the cost of production, often resulting in low or negative

margins. To ensure that the dairy industry continues to

sustain and improve in Massachusetts, long term solutions

including supply management and margin protection are

crucial. I therefore support the inclusion of the Dairy

Production Margin Protection Program and the Dairy Market

Stabilization Program in the 2013 Farm Bill.

Finally, Specialty Crops Block Grant funding is critical to

our agriculture economy, as specialty crops, including our

vibrant cranberry bogs, make up a majority of our food crops.

With over 400 growers producing approximately 35 percent of

the nation's cranberry supply, cranberries are the number one

food crop in Massachusetts and have a crop value of $104

million. I respectfully request that you authorize yearly

funding for the Specialty Crops Block Grant at the FY2013 $55

million level, at a minimum, to allow us to continue to

enhance the competitiveness of our specialty crops.

As you continue your work on the Farm Bill, I urge you to

protect these important programs and vital benefits in order

to provide certainty and stability for low-income families,

our farmers and rural small businesses.

Sincerely,

Deval L. Patrick,

Governor.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to another leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I will insert in the Record a letter that was sent to Members of Congress by dozens and dozens of organizations ranging from the AFL- CIO; The Alliance to End Hunger; Bread for the World; Feeding America; Food Research and Action Center (FRAC); Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger; MomsRising; and Share Our Strength. I can go on and on.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate we are having and will have on this farm bill. It is about our values. The question is, is it acceptable to try to balance the budget or pay for other programs to benefit wealthy special interests by cutting a program that benefits the poorest of the poor in this country, a program called SNAP.

The people on SNAP, I want to remind my colleagues, are good, decent, honest people. They are our neighbors. They are people who have fallen on hard times. They are people who are working, working full time and still not earning enough to be able to not qualify for public assistance. Those are the people we're talking about. Those are the people who would be adversely impacted with a $20.5 billion cut.

I would also say to my colleagues who say that we can't afford to support our social safety net, can't afford to support anti-hunger programs, I want

them to know that hunger costs America a great deal. The Center For American Progress did a study that said it cost us $168.5 billion a year in avoidable health care costs, disability, lost wages, reduced learning capacity.

Hungry children who go to school don't learn. That's why it's particularly cruel that over 200,000 kids will lose their access to free lunch and breakfast at school. Those kids will go to school hungry. You don't learn if you're hungry. We all talk about preparing the new generation and making sure our kids have all the opportunities. But food is as essential to learning as that textbook is. And here we are, we're going to embrace a bill that cuts 200,000 kids off the school breakfast and lunch program. Cutting SNAP will make hunger worse, and it will have long-term consequences.

Let me just finally say that we're going to have an amendment coming up shortly after we vote on the rule that I have sponsored along with dozens and dozens of other Members here in the House of Representatives to restore the cuts in SNAP. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think long and hard before you vote. We don't have to do this. The price of a farm bill should not be making more people hungry in America, but yet that's the price that's being exacted through this bill.

We are a better country than this. Let's not go down this road. This used to be a bipartisan effort. Bob Dole and Bill Emerson championed some of the anti-hunger programs that have kept people fed, that have invested in people who are now very successful. Don't turn your backs on that tradition.

And to my Democratic colleagues, I remind you that if we do not stand with people who are hungry, with people who are poor and vulnerable, then what the hell do we stand for? You know, this is about our values.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because a lot of amendments that should have been made in order were not. I appreciate the courtesies that my colleague, Mr. Sessions, afforded to us in the Rules Committee. I know he tried very hard to include as many amendments as possible. I appreciate that very much. I appreciate my amendment being made in order, but I think we could have done a little bit better.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. And please vote ``yes'' on the McGovern amendment. If that should fail, do not send a farm bill forward that will throw 2 million people off the rolls of SNAP and 200,000 kids off of free breakfast and lunch programs. We can do much better than that.

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

June 19, 2013.

We, the undersigned, support Rep. James McGovern's

amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

currently in H.R. 1947. As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947

because it would increase hunger among millions of

Americans--people with disabilities, children, seniors and

struggling parents--those who work, as well as those who are

unemployed or underemployed.

At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to

put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House

farm bill are unconscionable and harmful. Specifically, the

House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing

SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing

their benefits reduced by about $90 per month.

Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm

bill. Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per

person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November

1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which

will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25

per month for a family of three.

We support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to

restore the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP and urge Members of

Congress to vote YES when it comes up for a vote.

Advocates for Better Children's Diets (ABCD), AFL-CIO,

Alliance for a Just Society, Alliance to End Hunger, American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Commodity Distribution

Association (ACDA), American Federation of State, County &

Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of

Teachers, AFL-CIO, American Public Health Association,

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), Association of Jewish

Family and Children's Agencies, B. Sackin & Associates, Bread

for the World, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP),

Center for Women Policy Studies, Children's Defense Fund,

Children's HealthWatch, Coalition on Human Needs (CHN),

Community Action Partnership (CAP), Congressional Hunger

Center (CHC), E S Foods, Environmental Working Group (EWG),

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Families USA, Family Economic Initiative, Feeding America,

First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action

Center (F-RAC), Friends Committee on National Legislation,

International Federation of Professional and Technical

Engineers (IFPTE), International Union, United Automobile,

Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),

Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Legal Momentum, MAZON: A

Jewish Response to Hunger, MomsRising, National Association

of County Human Services Administrators, National Black Child

Development Institute, National Center for Law and Economic

Justice (NCLEJ), National Council on Aging, National CSFP

Association, National Education Association (NEA), National

Employment Law Project (NELP), National Health Care for the

Homeless Council, National Immigration Law Center (NILC).

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National WIC

Association, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK: A National

Catholic Social Justice Lobby, PolicyLink, Presbyterian

Church (U.S.A.), Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Coalition (REHCD), RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center

on Poverty Law, School Food FOCUS National Office, School

Nutrition Association (SNA), Share Our Strength, Sisters of

Mercy of the Americas Institute Justice Team, Society for

Nutrition Education and Behavior (SNEB), SparkAction, The

Food Trust, Union for Reform Judaism, United States

Conference of Mayors (USCM), Voices for America's Children,

Voices for Progress, WhyHunger, Wider Opportunities for

Women.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Jackson Lee amendment #94, which will be in the en bloc for H.R.

1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.'' My thanks to Agriculture Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas and Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc.

I appreciate the work of Rules Committee Chair McGovern and Rules Committee members for managing the debate on amendments to H.R. 1947.

I offered amendments to H.R. 1947 for deliberation by the Rules Committee for approval for consideration by the Full House. Only one of my amendments was made in order and will be included in the en bloc for the bill.

Jackson Lee #94 will be included in the en bloc and is a sense of Congress that the Federal Government should increase business opportunities for small businesses, black farmers, women and minority businesses.

Small farm businesses, black farmers, women and minority agriculture related businesses could benefit from partnerships with federal office location in receiving support for farmers markets. This would assist with eliminating food deserts, which are urban neighborhoods and rural towns without easy access to fresh, healthy and affordable food. These communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

Other amendments, I request that the Rules Committee favorably consider included Amendment #1, the McGovern amendment, which was joined by over 80 members of the House. This important amendment would restore $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP funding by offsetting the Farm Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage Option.

Jackson Lee amendments not included in the Rule for the bill include:

Jackson Lee amendment #182 was a sense of Congress that the Federal Government should increase financial support provided to urban community gardens and victory gardens to heighten awareness of nutrition.

The knowledge shared with urban dwellers can have a long term benefit to the health of our nation by increasing awareness regarding the link between what we eat and health. This would also be a means of expanding the diet options for persons who live in areas where the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables can be prohibitive.

Jackson Lee #183 is a sense of Congress regarding funding for a nutrition program for disabled and older Americans. Accessible and affordable nutrition is especially important when dietary needs change or must accommodate life's changes. Older Americans and persons with disabilities often must live with restricted diets.

Jackson Lee Amendment #184 was a sense of Congress that encourages food items being provided pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and school lunch program should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.

This amendment passed the House by a substantial margin in the 110th Congress by a recorded vote of 422 to 3. The inclusion of this amendment in the Rule for 1947 would affirm congressional commitment to fight juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value. The amendment should have been made in order considering the epidemic of juvenile and adult obesity.

Finally, I sought support by the Rules Committee of an amendment offered by Congresspersons Kildee, Fudge, Peters, Tim Ryan, and Jackson Lee amendment #53.

This amendment was not included in the final Rule for the bill. This amendment would have brought healthy food to those with limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables through a public-private partnership. It would increase funding for SNAP incentive programs for fresh fruits and vegetables by $5 million per year, which is offset by decreasing the adjusted gross income limit for certain Title and Title II programs.

Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this Nation must have to exist and to prosper. The $20.5 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP would remove 2 million Americans from this important food assistance program, and 210,000 children would lose access to free or reduced price school meals.

The course of our Nation's history led to changes in our economy, first from agricultural to industrial and now technological. These economic changes impacted the availability and affordability of food. Today our Nation is still one of the wealthiest in the world, but we now have food deserts. A food desert is a place where access to food may not be available and certainly access to health sustaining food is not available.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as 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 of fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.

The results 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 function.

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 is 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 is 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.

At the beginning of the third millennium of this Nation's existence we should know better. Denying a higher quality of life that would result from better access to healthier food choices is shortsighted--it is also economically unsound and threatens our national security.

Social stability is threatened when people's basic needs are not met--food, clean drinking water and breathable air are the least of the requirements for life. Denying access to sufficient amounts of the right kinds of food means people will become less productive, more prone to disease and will not be able to function as contributing members of society.

For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.

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 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.

In 2011, according to Feeding America:

46.2 million people were in poverty;

9.5 million families were in poverty;

26.5 million people ages 18-64 were in poverty;

16.1 million children under the age of 18 were in poverty;

3.6 million (9.0 percent) of seniors 65 and older were in poverty.

In the State of Texas:

34% of children live in poverty in Texas;

21% of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas;

17% of elderly live in poverty in Texas.

In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. Census reports that over the last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.

In 2011:

50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children;

households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.

Eighteen percent of households in the state of Texas from 2009 through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity--only the state of Mississippi exceeds the ratio of households struggling with hunger.

In the 18th Congressional District an estimated 151,741 families lived in poverty.

There are charitable organizations that many of us contribute to that provide food assistance to people in need, but their resources would not be able to fill the gap created by a $20.5 billion cut to Federal food assistance programs.

Food banks and pantries fill an important role by helping the working poor, disabled and the poor gain access to food assistance when government subsidized food assistance or budgets fall short of basic needs. Food pantries also help when an unforeseen circumstance occurs and more food is needed for a family to make it until payday or government assistance arrives. However, food pantries cannot carry the full burden of a community's need for food on their own.

During these difficult economic times, people who once gave to food pantries may now

seek donations from them. Millions of low income persons and families receive food assistance through SNAP. This program represents the Nation's largest program that combats domestic hunger.

For more than 40 years, SNAP has offered nutrition assistance to millions of low income individuals and families. Today, the SNAP program serves over 46 million people each month.

SNAP Statistics:

Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp benefits.

23 percent of households include a disabled person and 18 percent of households include an elderly person.

The FSP increases household food spending, and the increase is greater than what would occur with an equal benefit in cash.

Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much ($9.20) in total community spending.

The economics of SNAP food support programs benefit everyone by preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable supermarkets. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the cost of food for everyone less expensive and assure a variety and abundance of food selections found in grocery stores.

SNAP is the largest program in the American domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service programs supported by SNAP work with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood as well as faith-based organizations to assist those eligible for nutrition assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and work to ensure the program's integrity.

Yes, more can be done to assure that food distribution from the fields to the tables of Americans in most need can be improved. The process of improving our nation's ability to more efficiently and effectively meet the food needs of citizens must begin with understanding the problem and acting on facts. I strongly support hearings on the subject and encourage all oversight committees to consider taking up the matter during this Congress.

However, we cannot ignore the safety process in place to prevent abuse or misuse of the program. The Federal SNAP law provides two basic pathways for financial eligibility to the program: (1) Meeting federal eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or ``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.

However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and human services.

TANF gives states flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a wide variation of benefits and services offered among the states. SNAP allows states to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides states with the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.

Congress cannot afford to forget that by the year 2050, the world population is expected to be 9 billion persons. We cannot build our nation's food security on an uncertain future. Domestic food production and access to healthy nutritious food is essential to our Nation's long term national security.

Until we see the final farm bill, including the amendment adopted by the Full House, I cannot offer my support for the legislation as it is written.

The bill is too shortsighted about the realities of hunger in our Nation--the fact that it proposes to cut $20.5 billion from the SNAP program is of great concern. We should work to create certainty for farmers who run high risk businesses that are vulnerable to weather changes, insects or blight.

We should be equally concerned about providing long term food security for all of our Nation's citizens, which include rural, suburban and urban dwellers.

I thank the Agriculture Committee for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc for the bill. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the McGovern amendment to prevent the $20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. I urge all members to vote in favor of the en bloc and the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1947, pursuant to House Resolution 271, amendment No. 55, printed in part B of House Report 113-117, may be considered out of sequence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed 5 legislative days to add additional material.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman of primary jurisdiction from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

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

Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, the changes made to SNAP are directed at reducing fraud, not at those in true need. And affecting inefficiencies that we've been dealing with for years, we have a chance to affect those inefficiencies right now in this year's farm bill, not 5 years from now.

Without the changes proposed by the committee, and made with bipartisan support, Congress tells the American people that taxpayers should support fraudulent payments. Are we seriously debating a 2 percent reduction that centers on fraud elimination and ensuring that those we help actually qualify?

This farm bill eliminates advertising for food stamps, eliminates recruitment bonuses and payments to lottery winners, all of which divert funds away from the program's actual goal. Any individual can apply or reapply by simply meeting the income and asset requirements. These are simple, commonsense reforms that save taxpayers billions and continue to protect those truly in need. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Dr. Yoho).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains on both sides on this amendment.

That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth noting that, when the Ag Committee put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that reform had to be achieved across the board.

We have reforms in the commodity title. The direct payment program goes away. We have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion worth of savings through reforms. And, yes, we address the nutrition title.

We tried, in good faith, to pick programs that would not, in the eyes of the committee as a whole, create huge hardship on citizens.

How did we do that?

Well, categorical eligibility. If you receive some other Federal welfare benefit, under present law, you automatically get food stamps. We simply say, you have to apply. Demonstrate your income, demonstrate your assets. If you qualify, we help you. But you've got to prove you qualify.

Now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are, but that's not the debate today. It's automatic food stamps.

Something called LIHEAP, where a number of States use the flexibility of the '96 law to say we'll help you with your home heating, and then you can automatically qualify for food stamps. There are actually some States that send out a dollar to qualify for a free month's worth of automatic food stamps.

We simply say in the bill, States, if you want to do this, power to you. But put $20 a month out. Buy more than just a cup or a pint of home heating oil. Actually put something up. That saves about $8 billion.

We tried very hard to come up with ways that would not deny the needy the help they need but, by the same token, make sure those who qualified got the help. That's only fair to the recipients who need help. It's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help.

We tried, in the best way we could, to achieve reform and to help those who need the help.

Now, will these CBO numbers be in fruition when it's all calculated?

I suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will be eligible. They'll fill out the paperwork,

they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify.

But I can only work with the CBO numbers that are given to me under the rules of the House. And the rules say these two changes save $20.5 billion, half of the approximate $40 billion we save out of the overall FARRM Bill.

It's tough economic times. It's a challenging Federal budget. We're trying to do the right thing. We're trying to do it in the most difficult of circumstances.

I respect my friends, my colleagues. We just happen to disagree about how the policy will work. I sincerely believe the perspective I've offered is accurate. If my friends are accurate and I'm wrong, then we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. If I'm right, then the people who need help will continue to get help. The Treasury will have $20-some billion of a $40 billion package to spend in other places.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to claim time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I my consume.

If Mr. Gibbs is willing, I'd like to request that he withdraw his amendment with my commitment that we would continue to work on these issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented farm bill.

I yield to the gentleman for any response he might have.

I appreciate the gentleman's time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady and simply want to note for the record that I support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment. We should all vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.

I appreciate the intent of the gentlelady's amendment, which is obviously to restrain Federal spending, but being fiscally responsible has been my focus from the very beginning.

That is why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm spending by $23 billion. That's 36 percent.

Over the last 17 years, farmers have received substantial fixed payments with 100 percent certainty. We eliminated those payments and replaced them with a risk management framework that provides support only when farmers face significant losses. Under this amendment, farmers would go from 100 percent guaranteed direct loans to a 100 percent guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need it the most.

I urge my colleagues to consider a few key points:

Number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. The reference prices are all below cost of production estimates. Farmers are only paid 80 on 85 percent of their acres. In the case of the PLC, they are only paid on 90 percent of their yield. Total payments on a farm are kept at total historic program acres. Ensuring that no new acres are added to the program, we have very binding payment limitations and reduced AGI limits. And if that weren't enough, the formulas that established assistance levels are constrained themselves.

Second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're needed. The assistance is provided directly in proportion to need. We are no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. Even though it is incredibly unlikely that spending levels were ever to reach 110 percent of CBO's projected spending levels, it would be so because there has been a catastrophic drop in the market.

And the third and final point on this amendment--and I say this respectfully to my dear friend--it would be an absolute nightmare to administer. Some would say administering it is the administration's problem; but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be implemented. Every crop is on its own marketing year and every State has a slightly different growing season. Administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. It will tie USDA in knots.

I argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the technical merits of the Budget Act, but let's use the newly reformed farm safety net as a testing ground for--let's just not do that. Let's just not use it for this experiment.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have the greatest respect for my good colleague from Minnesota, but at the present time and in the present set of circumstances, I must, in good faith, oppose his amendment. I believe he is very sincere in his efforts, but, again, I must oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.

I thank my colleagues for having a good faith discussion. I do appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. If we're going to address one part of the '49 Act, we probably should address all of it. There have been ongoing discussions as long as I've been here about how to do that.

Many provisions of Federal law have an underlying base law. We do laws then that build off of that, and when they expire you revert to permanent law. That's the case of the '49 law. Maybe the 2013 farm bill should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern thing to come from, but that's probably a discussion for a different amendment.

I would say, quite simply, that I respect my colleague but that I, too, cannot vote to undo things by piecemeal. I've got to have a systematic way about it.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I simply want to note, as being an Oklahoman, I have an appreciation for drought issues, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this important topic to our attention. I think we should all vote for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would note to my colleague that I appreciate his issue of concern. I appreciate what I think he is trying to do. But in the nature of the FARRM Bill and the nature of the debate we're at right now, this is not really the environment, and I would ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment in good faith for a discussion sometime in the near future.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the CRP program from 32 million acres to 24 million acres. Designating in law the required amount of acres for subprograms of CRP will reduce the FSA's flexibility in administering the program. I do understand that the set- aside in the amendment is consistent with how FSA currently runs the program. However, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to leave as much flexibility as possible. I fear the set-aside could limit future general sign-ups or tie FSA's hands in future targeted initiatives.

I will work with the gentleman to ensure that CRP targets the most environmentally sensitive lands, but I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me these couple of minutes.

I would hope that we would listen to the point of order that's been raised by Mr. McGovern. For one thing, this bill criminalizes poverty. People with felony records won't be allowed to get food stamps. There will be work requirements in order to get food stamps.

These kinds of amendments and additions that we're going to see in this bill really add to the fallacious arguments that we have heard about the gargantuan cuts that are made to the SNAP program: that SNAP is run inefficiently, that these cuts won't hurt anyone, that these cuts don't serve the most vulnerable.

Let me just reiterate the facts:

SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable populations, primarily serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest communities, people who cannot work, people who don't have felony records;

In my own State of Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include children, 15.4 percent include the very elderly, 21.7 percent include a disabled person. 84.3 percent of those receiving SNAP in my State are children, elderly, and disabled;

Nationwide, 76 percent of SNAP households are composed of those who are children, seniors, or disabled persons;

There is a rate of 68.7 percent of SNAP households that have a gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty level.

Let me just say going forward that as soon as this bill is enacted, as soon as we take away the categorical eligibility, 200,000 children will lose free lunch.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1947. Why?

850,000 needy households would see their SNAP benefits cut by an average $90 per month. That's real food that these families will no longer afford to be able to put on the table. Last time I checked, the prices at the grocery store were not going down and wages were not going up!

2 million individuals would lose their eligibility entirely.

And just in time for the new school year in the fall, 200,000 low- income kids who are eligible and are currently enrolled in the school meals programs will be disenrolled because of the changes in this bill.

These are kids who we designed and create the school meals program to serve. And we are tossing them out for what reason . . . Mr. Speaker this just doesn't make sense.

The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education that helps SNAP households maximize the value of the meager SNAP benefit by teaching them how to shop and cook nutritious food on a budget.

The average SNAP benefit in Wisconsin is just $1.29 per person per meal, hardly enough to afford a nutritious diet.

This all comes on top of the reduction in SNAP benefits that all SNAP households will experience later this year when the ARRA increase expires.

On November 1, the average family of 3 on SNAP will lose $20-25 in monthly benefits.

That may not sound like much to you, but that's the equivalent of a gallon of low-fat milk $3.79, a box of corn flakes $2.99, and a half dozen bananas $1.80; a loaf of wheat bread $1.79 and some deli ham $2.49; and a box of spaghetti $1.00, sauce $2.89, and some ground beef $6.99 total $23.74.' In other words, that's several days' worth of food for a struggling family.

There is a myth going on that these changes will not really hurt people or that those being dislodged aren't low-income, do not have real and significant food needs that are not being met, and will be easily able to make up any gaps in access to food created by these changes as if they have secret Swiss bank accounts available.

Listen to the stories from my district . . .

How ridiculous. The people on SNAP are the poorest, most vulnerable, (kids, seniors, disabled).

My colleagues seem to be astonished about why in a middle of the Great recession SNAP rolls would have grown. Why, when food insecurity in our country is at record highs, we should see a surge in Americans seeking the safety net protections of this program.

Food insecurity is high. Nationally 50 million Americans live in households that struggle to put food on the table. In Wisconsin, there are 744,410 food insecure individuals, including 270,150 children.

An Institute of Medicine report released earlier this year found that the SNAP allotment is inadequate to improve food security and access to a nutritious diet and needs to be updated

Many Americans remain out of work. Those who are lucky enough to be back at work may be working for lower wages than before the recession.

SNAP is effectively targeted at our most vulnerable, primarily serving children, seniors, and the disabled in the poorest households. In Wisconsin, 47.2 percent of SNAP households include children, 15.4 percent include elderly, and 21.7 percent include a disabled person. Nationally, 76 percent of SNAP households included a child, senior, or disabled person.

I hear a lot about making sure SNAP goes to those who ``truly need it.'' Perhaps we need a reminder about just how poor SNAP participants really are. In Wisconsin, 68.7 percent of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty line $19,530 for family of 3 in 2013.

I will remind you that federal law sets a maximum for gross income of 130 percent of the federal poverty line. seven out of ten in the Wisconsin fall well below that threshold and I know the story is the same throughout our country.

The families on SNAP are in real need. No wonder that 90 percent of SNAP benefits are used by the 21st day of the month.

This myth that SNAP benefits are not going to those in need is dead wrong and dangerous.

Cuts to SNAP would only increase demand on already over-strapped charitable food providers. An increase in TEFAP commodities as provided in the bill is critical to our nation's food banks and hunger-relief charities but it won't come close to meeting the needs created by the SNAP cuts in the bill.

A need that even these generous and kind hearted groups know they cannot come close to meeting. No wonder they almost unanimously oppose the SNAP cuts in this bill.

Charity groups alone cannot feed everyone who's hungry.

Food benefits provided by charity groups in 2011 totaled approximately $4.1 billion according to Bread for the world.

These groups supplement the work that the federal government is doing to combat hunger. They cannot replace it but the bill would throw millions more of hungry families their way nonetheless.

The Harford Institute for Religion and Research estimates that there are 350,000 religious congregations in the U.S. and each would have to spend approximately $50,000 every year for the next ten years to feed those who would lose benefits or face reduced benefits under the Republican Budget Resolution approved in the House last year.

As the recession took hold in our country, SNAP was not the only safety net that stood in the gap to help combat growing hunger across America. Our nation's food banks also saw a 46 percent increase in clients served during the recession. Those needs have not abated and will only get worse if this Farm bill passes in its current form.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this unbalanced bill which seems to provides a safety net for everyone else but the most vulnerable and hungry in our country.