H.Res. 380

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally going to conference on the farm bill. I believe strongly that we need to reauthorize a 5-year bill to provide some clarity and provide some certainty not just for our farmers, but also for the millions of Americans who rely on nutrition assistance to feed themselves and their families.

I need to just say a few words about the process. I do not think I have ever seen a motion to go to conference with two motions to instruct conferees to the majority party in the House as all part of one rule. This is kind of an odd precedent, Mr. Speaker; but there are a lot of odd things going on around here during these last few days. We see major pieces of legislation, appropriation bills, coming to the Rules Committee that have never even been considered on the floor; and all of a sudden, they are brought before the House under a closed process. But anyway, I think it is pretty clear that regular order has been discarded in this House.

But putting that aside, let me say that I would like to take most of my time here to talk about the issue of hunger in America because this bill is very relevant to that subject.

After a $20 billion cut to the SNAP program was voted down by the House in June, the Republican leadership sadly decided to double-down on the cruelty with a nearly $40 billion cut. That bill also narrowly passed, and I want to thank the brave Republicans who stood with us, who listened to their own constituents, and who listened to their consciences and joined with us in voting ``no'' on that $40 billion cut.

Supporters of those cuts say it is all about ``reform.'' Well, this is not about reform, Mr. Speaker. It is about trying to destroy a very important part of the social safety net.

I am happy to talk to anyone and everyone about how we can improve SNAP. Where there is waste or there is fraud or there is abuse, we should crack down on it; but the House bill takes a sledgehammer to a program that provides food--food, Mr. Speaker--to some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

The CBO says that the nearly $40 billion cut would throw 3.8 million low-income people off SNAP in 2014 and millions more in the following years. These are some of America's poorest adults as well as many low- income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, so there is no confusion. People who work or who don't make enough to feed their families would be cut from this program.

Well, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families will also lose their free school meals; and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their SNAP benefits. Now, we all stand up here and tell our constituents how much we care about our veterans and how much we honor them; but to throw 170,000 of these veterans off this food program because they can't find work, that is unbelievable. That is unbelievable, and it is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be poor in America. It is not a glamorous life. It is a struggle just to make it through the day. The average SNAP benefit is $1.50 per meal. Housing costs, transportation costs, child care costs--they all add up.

Fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. Think of people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson working with George McGovern and Tony Hall.

I am hopeful that once we get to conference, we can resurrect that bipartisan spirit and work together to strengthen our Nation's food assistance programs.

I would also note that we are approaching November 1, a day of reckoning for my Republican colleagues. Automatic cuts to SNAP are already scheduled to take place. If they do not end the Republican shutdown, we are going to see even more terrible, terrible consequences for the hungry in this country. We have already seen some assistance delayed or denied. If this shutdown isn't ended, SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program will all be devastated.

I would say to my colleagues, you can't approach the budget in a piecemeal way, and you can't approach the social safety net in this country in a piecemeal way. If you miss a part of that net that makes up the social safety net in this country, then people fall through the cracks; and people are falling through the cracks because of this ridiculous shutdown that my Republican friends have thrust upon this country.

We shouldn't be here talking about a shutdown or about whether we are going to default on our debt come October 17. We should be talking about how we create jobs for people or how we strengthen programs to end hunger in America and how we make life for people in this country better, not worse. And yet here we are, as we are about to go to conference on the farm bill, dealing with this shutdown that is making hunger worse in America.

I would urge my colleagues to, once again, come to the floor with a clean continuing resolution. Bring up the Senate bill, the Senate bill that is at Republican numbers, the budget numbers that my Republican friends said they wanted, the sequester numbers that I think are awful; but let's bring it up and have a clean vote.

I am willing to compromise and cooperate with my Republican colleagues to pass a short-term continuing resolution at their numbers to keep the government going. I think that is the least we could do. And I would urge my colleagues, before the day is out, to bring that kind of resolution to the House floor.

So I urge my colleagues to pass a clean continuing resolution and remove the sword hanging over the heads of the hungry in this country. I would also urge all of my colleagues, as we go to conference, to insist that in that conference we fix this terrible, terrible mistake that this House of Representatives made when they passed a $40 billion cut in the SNAP program.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member on the Ag Committee, Mr. Peterson, when he talks about kind of how unusual this process is with the sense of Congress resolutions that are put into this rule, basically, to instruct conferees on what to do.

It is highly unusual that the majority gives itself two of these sense of Congress resolutions. But this whole process has been really strange.

I would just say to my colleagues, I come to this floor every week and I talk about the issue of hunger and food insecurity in America. There are 50 million people who are hungry; 17 million are kids. I think it is something we all should be ashamed of.

I am on the Agriculture Committee, as well as being on the Rules Committee. I am on the Subcommittee on Nutrition. I was anxious to get on that committee so I could talk about the importance of a social safety net, about the importance of making sure that people in this country have enough to eat. Much to my surprise, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Nutrition held a total of zero hearings on SNAP. The full committee held no hearings.

Then, even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, was that the nutrition title wasn't even written in the Agriculture Committee. It was written in the majority leader's back room somewhere by God knows who wrote this thing. But it never came to the Agriculture Committee.

It was never brought up for a hearing. There was no markup. There were no amendments that were to be offered. And then it showed up at the Rules Committee magically and was brought to this floor, a $40 billion cut that would throw 3.8 million people off the program, that would throw 170,000 veterans off the program.

No hearings, nothing. Nothing.

And my colleagues like to talk about regular order. That is not regular order. That is blowing up the whole process.

If my friends have concerns about the SNAP program, which, by the way, is the most efficiently and effectively-run Federal program we have, with one of the lowest error rates--I wish the Department of Defense had those kind of low error rates--then you hold a hearing.

You talk to the people who are on the program. You talk to the people who administer the program. You do this thoughtfully. You do it so that people who don't deserve to get the benefit don't get it, and people who deserve to get it get it.

But my friends come to the floor with this sledgehammer approach, this mindless approach of just gutting the program, close to $40 billion.

We are slowly but surely getting out of this terrible economy, and as we do, fewer and fewer people will be on the program.

That is the way it works. When the economy is good, fewer people need the benefit. When the economy is bad, more people need the benefit.

But to pull the rug right from underneath people who are still struggling--my friends say all we want to do is make sure that able- bodied people who can work, work. Well, most of the people who are able to work, work, who are on SNAP, but they earn so little that they qualify for this benefit.

If my friends want to help lift people off the program, raise the minimum wage. But there is something wrong in this country when you have got people working full time and earning so little that they are still in poverty. That is what we should be addressing.

But rather than going through regular order, rather than having the Agriculture Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, come up with a proposal, the majority leader takes this in his own hands and does it on his own and brings it to the floor, and we are all supposed to just take it.

I want to, again, thank the handful of Republicans that had the guts to stand up and do the right thing and vote against it. We came very close to defeating it.

But I will tell my friends right now that people like me are not going to support a farm bill that makes more people hungry in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I strongly disagree with the gentlelady's statement--strongly disagree. My friend talks about oversight. There were no hearings-- none.

She talks about research somehow shows that there is lots of fraud, waste, and abuse. What research? The Government Accountability Office and the USDA have all documented fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP program, and it is minimal--a little over a 2 percent error rate--and much of that is underpayment. People are not getting what they are entitled to.

Enough of this demonizing poor people; enough of diminishing their struggle. We ought to do the right thing and make sure that people in this country have enough to eat. That shouldn't be a radical idea.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from North Carolina that I look forward to the day when she and her Republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill to go after fraud, waste, and abuse in defense contracting; but, instead, they have chosen to go after poor people and are not even giving them the benefit of a hearing. There has been no hearing, no markup on this at all. This came out of thin air in the majority leader's office. This wasn't even brought to the committee of jurisdiction. This is astounding. My friends are talking about reform. This isn't reform. This is a joke.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who is the ranking member on the Nutrition Subcommittee on the Agriculture Committee. It is the subcommittee that should have held a hearing on this SNAP bill, but it never did.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader on this issue of food security and on so many other issues to combat poverty.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Let me inquire of the gentlelady if she would be willing to yield us a few minutes on this side because we have a lot of speakers.

I remember one time when I lent the gentlewoman a couple of minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her graciousness in allowing my side a few more minutes. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Senate's clean continuing resolution so that we can send it to the President for his signature today and end this government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished Member of the Democratic leadership.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for yielding us additional time. It is important, I think, that we be heard on these issues.

One of the reasons why we are so passionate about reopening the government is because this government shutdown is hurting people, and it is hurting the most vulnerable people in our society the most.

One of the things that has troubled me about the direction the Republican leadership has taken in this Congress is that it has become unfashionable to worry about the poor and the vulnerable in this people's House of Representatives. Time and time and time again, my friends seek to balance the budget by cutting programs that help the most vulnerable. The $40 billion cut in SNAP will throw 3.8 million poor people off the program, it will throw children off the program, it will throw working people off the program.

A lot of the people--contrary to what my friends say--who are on SNAP work for a living, they work full time. If you are earning minimum wage working full time, you still qualify for SNAP.

There are people in this country who are hurting, who are depending upon us to be there, to make sure that there is a social safety net that will make sure that people don't fall through the cracks.

One of the reasons we object to this nutrition provision in the farm bill is because it will hurt people--it will hurt people. We were sent here to help people. This used to be a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans need to join together on this.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 380 provides for a motion to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, this rule authorizes House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas to make a motion to go to conference with the Senate on the farm bill and provides for consideration of two resolutions expressing the sense of the House regarding specific provisions in the farm bill.

Conference committees are a crucial step in resolving policy differences between the House and Senate, and I am encouraged that the House is taking this step to provide certainty for farmers across this country by reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy.

The House proposal is not perfect, but it moves Federal agriculture policy in the right direction; and my hope is that during a conference committee with the Senate, we can find common ground.

Additionally, the rule makes in order the consideration of two resolutions that express the sense of the House on crop insurance and the U.S. sugar program. The first resolution expresses the sense of the House that conferees should agree to limit crop insurance based on average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000. This commonsense proposal ensures that crop insurance is appropriately targeted to those who need it most.

The second resolution instructs conferees to advance provisions to repeal the administration of tariff rate quotas and, thus, restore the Secretary of Agriculture's authority to manage supplies of sugar throughout the year to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices. I strongly support this resolution, as it restores free-market principles to the U.S. sugar program.

This rule provides for the business of legislating and resolving differences between our two Chambers to find common ground and move forward in reauthorizing Federal agriculture policy. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, the motion to go to conference, and the motions to instruct provided by this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2642 makes commonsense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy, which is why it is time to begin conversations with our Senate colleagues on a path forward that ultimately gets these important reforms enacted into law.

This bill isn't perfect, but it puts us on a path to provide certainty to America's farmers and ranchers by adopting a 5-year farm bill that will actually become law.

This measure is the result of more than 3 years of debate and discussion, including 46 hearings and a 2-year audit of every farm program. The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, including direct payments.

It eliminates and streamlines duplicative and overlapping conservation programs and trims traditional farm policy by almost $23 billion. The bill eliminates direct payments and ensures no payments are made to those who do not actually farm.

The bill also provides regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers. It eliminates a duplicative permitting requirement for pesticides and prohibits the EPA from implementing the unjustified and unscientific biological opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service until there is an unbiased, scientific peer review of those opinions.

The bill requires regulatory agencies across the government to use scientifically sound information in moving forward with their regulatory initiatives. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture to advocate on behalf of the

farmers and ranchers as other agencies move forward with regulations affecting food and fiber.

The bill also eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for seed importers.

Finally, H.R. 2642 repeals the underlying 1949 permanent law and replaces it with the 2013 farm bill. This is important, Mr. Speaker, because without reauthorization farm policy will revert to permanent statutes established in the 1938 and 1949 laws which are drastically different from current programs.

The permanent statutes exclude many commodities such as rice, soybeans, and peanuts; set support prices much higher than current levels; and prevent new enrollment in various conservation programs.

Permanent agriculture law established by the Agriculture Adjustments Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 does not reflect current farming and marketing practices, trade agreements or market circumstances.

Farmers, as well as taxpayers, will benefit from a modernized bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague from Massachusetts, and it is obvious that every time we have anything on this floor or in the Rules Committee where we are dealing with the subject of hunger that he is extraordinarily passionate about the issue.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans care about Americans who are hungry. We care about hunger issues. He makes it sound as though we are heartless people. We are not.

What we are doing here is our best to preserve the program for the truly needy and those who are hungry in this country.

My colleague says it is the most efficiently and effectively-run program in the country, with low error rates. That is not what the research shows. It isn't even what TV programs find out on their own with very little research.

They go out and they find the terrible abuse with the program, the SNAP program, which used to be called the food stamp program, but it was given this Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program name some time ago to get away from the term ``food stamps.'' But that is what it is. It is a food stamp program.

Almost everybody in this country knows of people who have abused the program. Now, we don't want to deny help to truly needy people. If we can make these reforms in this program, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to preserve the entire program for those who truly need it.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, as I said, is designed to preserve the integrity of the SNAP program, or food stamps for families, and especially for children who rely on food stamps. Its cost-saving reforms are a step in the right direction and are long overdue out of respect for needy Americans and taxpayers.

This bill makes the first reforms to the program since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and these reforms were strengthened during a rigorous amendment process on the House floor.

Despite media reports to the contrary, House Republicans are not cutting SNAP for individuals who currently meet the program's eligibility requirements. Instead, our reforms focus on eliminating fraud and abuse that exist within the program and remove from the programs individuals who do not qualify for the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I think that bears repeating. What we are doing is eliminating fraud and abuse and removing from the program individuals who do not qualify for benefits. That is what the American people expect us to do in our oversight processes here.

Because of several well-documented and legally questionable efforts by President Obama's Department of Agriculture and by the individual States that administer the program, SNAP benefits have been extended to a number of recipients who would not otherwise qualify. The growth in SNAP spending caused by such expansion efforts will strain the safety net until it breaks, necessitating much higher taxes and indiscriminate cuts that would hit the poorest Americans the

hardest. From a moral perspective, such an outcome would harm the very people programs like SNAP are intended to help, and that is unacceptable. That is why I voted for H.R. 3102 when it passed the House on September 19.

The bill ensures benefits are reserved for legal recipients and aren't directed to illegal immigrants.

The bill closes the ``heat-and-eat'' loophole related to electricity bill assistance, gives States the authority to require drug testing for recipients, and prohibits felons from receiving SNAP benefits.

H.R. 3102 reinstates work requirements for all able-bodied adults, without dependents, receiving SNAP benefits.

An overextended, unchecked SNAP program won't be capable of serving the citizens it is purposed to help. It is the job of this Congress to ensure the program is held accountable as a steward of taxpayer dollars and to provide a safety net for the needy.

For the first time, the House separated farm policy from the food stamp program, which is only appropriate, as 80 percent of the so- called ``farm bill'' in the past was spent on providing nutrition assistance to needy families. The farm-only portion of the farm bill authorizes farm programs through fiscal year 2018; however, H.R. 3102 authorizes appropriations for SNAP only through fiscal year 2016.

If enacted and if the two bills were addressed on 5-and 3-year intervals, respectively, this would decouple SNAP from the authorization of farm programs until 2031. Considering agriculture and nutrition programs independently, going forward, will help take politics out of the equation and allow for reforms that will sustain both categories of programs in years to come.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule and this legislation underlying it is not designed to abuse or demonize poor people. What we are trying to do is to save these programs for the truly needy.

Mr. Speaker, we are not simply doing oversight on the farm bill and on agriculture issues. The House has been doing its job of oversight throughout the Federal Government. We have been

doing that throughout this entire session. We are looking to find fraud, abuse, and waste in every program. It just happens that today we are talking about this program.

But as you know, Mr. Speaker, almost every day we bring forth legislation that will help us identify waste, fraud, and abuse and do everything we can to protect hardworking taxpayers in this country who are providing the funds to take care of the truly needy in this country and to allow us to help those people, and that is what this legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, the work of making these improvements and reforms to longstanding Federal policy is not easy. I commend Chairman Lucas and the members of the Agriculture Committee for their thoughtful work. I was pleased to work with them and to have three commonsense amendments included in H.R. 2642 when it passed the House.

The spending safeguard amendment will cap spending on the Farm Risk Management Election program at 110 percent of CBO-predicted levels for the first 5 years in which payments are disbursed.

And, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this amendment passed with bipartisan support, as did most of the amendments to that legislation.

In the event government's cost projections prove completely wrong, the amendment will ensure taxpayers are not forced to automatically pay the difference between Washington's mistake and reality.

My second amendment, the Sunset Discretionary Programs amendment, will automatically end discretionary programs in the 2013 farm bill upon expiration of the bill's 5-year authorization period. Many programs authorized by the farm bill are authorized indefinitely. This amendment will require Congress to justify a program's continued existence and funding through regular reauthorization efforts.

As our national debt approaches $17 trillion, Mr. Speaker, Congress simply cannot afford to add to the number of costly Federal programs that are on autopilot. This was really an excellent amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, Congressman Keith Ellison, my Democrat colleague, and I offered the crop insurance transparency amendment, which will require the government to disclose the names of key persons or entities receiving Federal crop insurance subsidies. Specifically, disclosure would be required for Members of Congress and their immediate families, Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate families, and entities in which any of the preceding parties are majority stockholders. This information is already recorded, but members of the public have to petition the government under the Freedom of Information Act to acquire the data.

It shouldn't take a 4-year request for the American people to figure out whether their leaders are receiving government farm subsidies. This bipartisan amendment makes this information available to the public without a FOIA request.

Mr. Speaker, we want transparency, and my amendment takes us much closer to that. I appreciate Chairman Lucas' willingness to work with me on these amendments, and I look forward to seeing them maintained during the conference committee.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of whether we recognize poor people or not. Some of us probably grew up poorer than anybody on the other side of the aisle. I am one of those people. I have great empathy for people who are poor, but I am so pleased that we live in the greatest country in the world in which we have the opportunities to overcome poverty because of the great opportunities that are given to us in the country.

With that, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of comity and goodness, I yield the 3 minutes that is requested of me to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining, and whether the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to see the government reopen also. We have sent many pieces of legislation over to the Senate, but the Senate has refused to act on them. We hope very much to get the government open again.

We are not opposed to helping the truly needy in this country. We want to help those people. We believe by reforming the legislation related to food stamps that we will be able to save the program for the truly needy.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations are an absolute necessity in a divided government, and conference committees provide an avenue for the House and Senate to meet and resolve policy differences.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, to provide a motion to go to conference on the farm bill so we can move the reauthorization process forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 378) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding certain provisions of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 relating to the Secretary of Agriculture's administration of tariff-rate quotas for raw and refined sugar, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise in support of the resolution and call on the House to support reforming the sugar program in upcoming negotiations on the farm bill.

Just a few months ago, I offered a reform amendment to the farm bill that gained unprecedented support and which made modest, but essential, reforms to our government's sugar program. Today, we debate this resolution, one that is even more modest but just as critical to bringing stability and balance to our sugar market. As a matter of fact, my resolution is even more timely. Following our debate on this program, the government began shoveling out money to support sugar growers--$250 million worth in 4 months. We were told by the opposing side that it operated at no cost. We need to address this wasteful practice.

Mr. Speaker, every single one of us has a small food business in his district. Sugar is an essential ingredient even in many foods that aren't necessarily sweet. We all know how hard it is on small businesses right now. We know how critical these jobs are to our economy. Shouldn't we do everything we can to help them grow strong?

Today, millions of American families are on tight budgets. They watch their spending carefully, especially when it comes to buying food; and when they walk down the grocery aisle, they may not realize the costs that go into the products that they buy for themselves and their children. Very few of them know that they are paying significantly more for these products in order to ensure the profits of a small handful of sugar producers. They don't realize that, altogether, Americans are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year because of a government sugar program that makes little sense.

Tens of millions of Americans are looking for jobs. Many don't understand why there isn't more work available right now. What they don't know is that a nationwide industry is suffering because we have a sugar program that favors the few over the many. There are more than 600,000 jobs in sugar-using industries today. However, that industry has seen tough times. More than 127,000 jobs have been lost since the late 1990s. The Department of Commerce estimates that, for every one job the sugar program saves, three are lost in sugar-using industries. The sugar program is a bad deal for businesses, for consumers, for job seekers, and for taxpayers. When the House passed a farm bill this summer, every single commodity program was reformed except for one--the sugar program.

The sugar program is probably more in need of reform than any other commodity. The program controls prices to ensure that at all times sugar farmers and producers profit. When prices are high, as they were for 4 out of the last 5 years, producers do very well. When prices are low, the government buys sugar and makes sure that farmers and producers make their money back. This isn't a functioning sugar market. It is a nonstop bailout.

Meanwhile, the world price for sugar is typically much lower than here in the United States, and this is a big advantage for foreign competitors. In fact, Canada even advertises their access to the world sugar market as a reason for American companies to relocate or to build new facilities in their nation. Mexican food companies also have lower and more stable prices and the advantages of importing products to the U.S. under NAFTA. Simply put, we are handicapping our food industries at a time when they face intense competition. Good jobs are flowing out of the U.S. into other nations.

In the farm bill we sent over to the Senate, every single commodity program was reformed except for sugar. Dairy farmers, peanut growers, cotton growers, and many more will all see changes to their programs. The resolution on the House floor today proposes a modest change to the sugar program.

Currently, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to manage imports of sugar for 6 months out of the year. The other 6 months of the year, he can do nothing even if prices spike unreasonably high. The Secretary basically has to make an educated guess about how much sugar should be imported. The way the statute is written, the Secretary must err on the side of the growers and producers. This means that, if the guess is wrong, Big Sugar benefits and consumers get fleeced.

It is time that we put an end to a policy that makes little sense--a policy that didn't even exist until the 2008 farm bill. This is a failed experiment that has hurt lots of people and has helped only a handful.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this resolution is on the floor today. I believe that the House should make a strong statement--that our conferees should work to get good reform to the sugar program in this year's farm bill. I am also grateful for the bipartisan support for this measure. At a time when it seems like Democrats and Republicans can't agree on much, we have a very strong bipartisan group working across the aisle to stand up for consumers, for job seekers, for businesses, and for taxpayers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, the cochair of the Sugar Reform Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, Jackie Speier.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a leader in sugar reform.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), another leader in sugar reform in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, again, this is reform. It is not a repeal of the sugar program. It is a very modest reform, simply going back to what the Secretary had before 2008 with the ability, the flexibility to allow sugar imports, when necessary, to meet domestic demand.

It allows sugar farmers to retain their price supports. It helps save American taxpayers and consumers money, about $3.5 billion per year. It helps protect hundreds of thousands of good American manufacturing jobs. It does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar, and it reduces market manipulation.

Madam Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose this resolution and to say that we have very strong bipartisan opposition to this resolution. Frankly, I don't know why we are doing this, because we settled this issue when we had the debate on the floor earlier in June. This is a sense of the Congress, and there is no requirement that the conference committee pay any attention to this, so I don't quite understand why we are going through this process; but in any event, we are here.

We have a sugar policy that supports $20 billion in economic activity and 142,000 jobs. The reason we have it is that every country in the world that produces sugar subsidizes those industries or supports them, in most cases substantially more than does the United States. So if we change this program or give up what we have put together here, what you are going to do is give this industry away to countries that subsidize and support their industries more than we are doing here in the United States. I don't know why we would want to do that, but that would be the effect of this.

The Government of Mexico owns 20 percent of the industry in its country; and with NAFTA, we gave Mexico open access to our market. This is in spite of the fact that they own the industry down there. President Reagan once said that unilateral disarmament has never worked, that it only encourages aggressors. Reagan had it right. So whether it is defense policy or economic policy, you don't give something away for nothing to people who are doing more than what our opponents claim we are doing.

The United States is the largest sugar importer in the world. We bring in 1.5 million tons of sugar from 40 countries. Nobody else does that. This is sugar we could make here in the United States, but we gave away 15 percent of our market to help other countries. We have been doing that for a long time, and we have had pretty good prices. All of a sudden, because Mexico had a good crop, I guess, the prices have collapsed. If you think that the loan rate--the bottom price that we have in the sugar program--is giving us some kind of a profit or some kind of a ``fat cat'' deal, I invite you to come up to American Crystal's annual meeting in December in my area and in Representative Cramer's area, at which they are going to be reporting that they have lost money this year because the sugar prices are at loan rates. So the loan rates that are in the bill are not guaranteeing anybody a profit. They are just putting a floor under it, trying to keep us in business until next year.

There is no good reason to be doing this. We settled this issue before. The reason for the April 1 date is that, in the past, the USDA has made mistakes in terms of where we were with the market. So by having an April 1 date, we can make it less likely that these mistakes are going to happen in the future. That is the main reason that we have got it in there.

The sugar program has operated at no cost for a long time. During that time, the opponents claim that the prices were too high. Now the prices have collapsed, and they are saying the safety net costs too much. So they are still complaining about the prices being too high. I will guarantee you that you could get the price down to almost nothing, and it wouldn't change the price that people charge for candy bars. You could probably give it away, and they wouldn't lower the price.

This has been a good policy. It keeps sugar stable. There was a time in this country when we got rid of the sugar program. What happened? We had prices go up to 50 cents a pound, and we had the candy companies and the sugar users come in and ask for the government program to be put back in place so they could get the prices down to a more affordable level. I will guarantee you, if you get rid of the sugar policy, what you are going to have is a feast or famine situation. You might have low prices for a while, but you are going to have a time when high prices are going to do a lot more harm to you than this sugar program does.

This is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be done, as we have already settled this issue. I ask my colleagues to reject this for any number of reasons.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that for the 12 years before July there has been no cost at all, and the food stamp part of the farm bill had no hearings either.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas, Judge Poe.

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the Record. We do not need to import. The farmers in my district could easily produce that 15 percent. We gave those markets to these countries out of the goodness of our heart.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), my good friend and the clean-up hitter on our side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would just reiterate that we, in sugar-producing areas, we, who are in the sugar production business, would happily give up the sugar program if everybody else in the world gave up their sugar programs. That is the problem; and as I said in my opening statement, as President Reagan said, when you unilaterally disarm, you are asking for trouble.

We are bringing in 15 percent of our market in imports that we don't need to do. We could easily produce that in the United States.

So I would say to these other countries, you give up all of your support for your sugar industry, you bring in 15 percent in Brazil and Thailand and these other big sugar-producing areas, and we would be happy to compete because we will run them out of business.

The problem is, that is not the real world. So if you want to maintain these jobs and this industry in the country, the way to do it is with this current program. That is why it was put in in '08. That is why it was supported on both sides, in both the House and the Senate in 2013. And it works.

One of the speakers had said that we have these high consumer prices in the United States. That is not true. We have the cheapest, most affordable, most abundant, and safest food supply in the world in the United States, including sugar. And one of the reasons is because of the policies we have in place. One of those policies is the sugar policy.

So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution. As it was

stated, it is unnecessary. It is not something that is going to be considered by the conference committee anyway. I don't know why we are doing it, but it should be defeated in spite of that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

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

This motion contains two instructions for the farm bill conferees. One is to support the permanent law provisions in the Senate farm bill and what we currently have and have had for years and years. The second is to support the Senate position of a 5-year reauthorization of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

To be clear, this motion keeps intact the longstanding alliance needed to pass a strong farm bill.

America's two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union, both wrote in opposition to the House's original consideration of H.R. 2642, the ``farm only'' farm bill.

Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman wrote:

It is frustrating to our members that this broad coalition

of support for passage of the COMPLETE farm bill appears to

have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no

real stake in this farm bill, the economic vitality and jobs

agriculture provides in this country, or for the customers

ranchers and farmers serve.

The Farm Bureau joined a broad coalition of 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, forestry, energy and crop insurance groups that expressed their opposition to splitting the nutrition title from the farm bill and urged House leaders to pass a 5- year farm bill.

When such a large group of organizations, most with different if not conflicting priorities, can come together and agree on something, we should listen to them. Doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a stake in this bill recommends does not make sense, and it is not the way to achieve success, in my opinion.

I will insert both the Farm Bureau and coalition letters into the Record.

The farm bill's nutrition program needs to be on the same timeline as the bill's other provisions. It makes no sense to de-couple farm and food programs; they go hand in hand. I worry that separating the two of them sets us on a path to no farm bill in the future. The Senate farm bill preserves the partnership between farm and food programs, and we should defer to that approach.

As Farmers Union president Roger Johnson wrote:

Repealing permanent law would remove the element of the

bill which would force Congress to act on a piece of

legislation that provides a safety net for farmers and

ranchers and the food insecure in this country, and protects

our Nation's natural resources.

I will insert the Farmers Union letter into the Record.

The permanent law provisions are important to ensuring that Congress revisits farm programs every 5 years. These are farm laws from 1938 and 1949 that, if Congress does not pass a new farm bill, would go into effect. Actually, because we have not passed a farm bill at this point, and it expired on October 1, we actually are operating under permanent law right now.

Obviously, farming has changed a lot since then, and everybody knows these programs don't make a lot of sense today, but that's the point of permanent law. It is the reason that we work together and we pass a new farm bill, because the alternative is not very acceptable.

Farm bills are traditionally a compromise, and there are things that some people like and things that some people don't like. Permanent law encourages both groups to work together because no one wants to go back to the outdated and unworkable farm programs of 1938 and 1949.

Without these permanent law provisions, it will make it more difficult to make changes, improvements, and reforms over time as we discover that they are needed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

National Farmers Union,

July 11, 2013.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: National Farmers Union (NFU)

strongly urges you to vote against the rule and final passage

of H.R. 2642, a bill that divorces the nutrition title from

the rest of the farm bill and repeals permanent law.

The two largest general farm organizations in the country

have spoken out multiple times in opposition to separating

nutrition programs from the farm bill. Splitting the bill is

a shortsighted strategy that would effectively undermine the

long-standing bipartisan coalition of rural and urban members

that have traditionally supported passage of a unified bill.

We are also very concerned that including a provision that

would repeal permanent law did not receive any outside

scrutiny or ability to weigh in through hearings. Repealing

permanent law would remove the element in the bill which

would force Congress to act on a piece of legislation that

provides a safety net for farmers, ranchers, the food

insecure and protects our nation's natural resources.

Last week, NFU led a coalition of 531 other organizations

in writing a letter calling for the House of Representatives

not to split the bill. This broad-based coalition, composed

of agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance,

forestry, energy and crop insurance companies and

organizations is now being undermined by extreme partisan

political organizations that do not represent constituents

affected by the farm bill.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter. We urge

you to vote against the rule and final passage of H.R. 2642

and encourage leadership to bring a unified bill to the floor

as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Roger Johnson,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), one of our subcommittee ranking members.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), one of our subcommittee ranking members.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), a new member of the committee-- well, an old member. He was a member of the Ag Committee back in the 1970s.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I just say that we have had a way to deal with this for the last 40-some years

that has worked pretty well. I think it is a big mistake, as most groups that are involved in the farm bill feel it is a mistake, to eliminate permanent law and to have a situation where one part of the bill is authorized for a different length of time than the other. People that have been involved in this for a long time think this is a mistake. I think it is a mistake.

I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance my time.

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