Protect and Serve Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget and Empowerment Control Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, House Resolution 891.

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.

Section 3 of House Resolution 891 states that: ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' Therefore, I make a point of order pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act that this rule may not be considered.

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, it was a Republican bill passed in a Republican Congress, but this act was supposed to stop Congress from passing bills that forced huge new costs on State and local governments without giving them the money to pay for those costs.

Well, apparently it didn't work, because the farm bill, which is part of this rule, would impose massive new mandates on State and local governments in the Republican majority's quest to kick families off of

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague and anybody else to do something radical: actually read the CBO study.

Basically, what it says here is that the bill would impose intergovernmental mandates by amending SNAP eligibility requirements, placing new responsibilities on States as administrators of child support enforcement, and requiring new State activities in the SNAP program.

For large entitlement programs like SNAP and child support enforcement, UMRA defines an increase in the stringency of conditions on States and localities as an intergovernmental mandate if affected governments lack authority to offset those costs while continuing to provide required services. The bill's requirements would increase the workload of State agencies in areas where they have limited flexibility to amend their responsibilities and offset additional costs and, thus, would be intergovernmental mandates.

In other words, on a whole range of issues, this bill requires States to do so much more, and the Federal Government does not provide the funding to meet those obligations. So if States want to provide SNAP benefits to their citizens, which I think every State continues to want to do, they are going to have to embrace all these unfunded mandates, add all these additional costs on to what they are already paying.

These are big, fat unfunded mandates. And I want to tell you, when your Governors read this bill, when you read this bill, you are going to be amazed about all these additional burdens that are going to be imposed on States and localities. If this isn't an unfunded mandate, if this wasn't what that Republican initiative was all about when it was first implemented, I have no idea what it is.

But I will tell you, even on the work training programs, this bill would provide maybe about $30 per person for education and training. We are told that education and training programs, on average, range from $7,000 to $14,000 to be effective. So this is an unfunded mandate, plain and simple. If you care about unfunded mandates, you are going to support us in our initiative here today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just said one rule three bills, which has become kind of a habit around here where we try to bunch a whole bunch of bills together in one rule so we don't actually focus on any one issue in a way that is meaningful. It is, I think, an attempt to try to stifle debate.

We have a bill that would protect our police. We have a bill that would deal with veterans. And then we have the farm bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on the farm bill, if I may.

I have served on the Agriculture Committee since 2011. Historically, it has been one of the most--if not the most--bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives. That is how farm bills are normally crafted, through compromise and through a coalition of Members from urban and rural America coming together to get something done.

That is why I have always had faith in this process--faith that minority views would be heard. Even when it wasn't easy and even when the final product wasn't perfect, the end product was traditionally bipartisan. Until today.

The process for this farm bill was a sham. In no way did it reflect the Agriculture Committee's long, bipartisan tradition. I am the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, and even I wasn't able to see a word of text until this bill was publicly released. I am not even sure when Republicans on the subcommittee first saw the language.

Over the last 2\1/2\ years, the Agriculture Committee held 23 hearings on SNAP. Apparently, they were just for show, because not a single witness--Democrat or Republican--recommended any of the drastic cuts or draconian policy changes to SNAP included in this Republican farm bill.

When our distinguished ranking member on the committee, Mr. Peterson, was finally asked for Democratic feedback on the nutrition title, he gave a long, thoughtful list of objections and suggested changes. His input was ignored with the majority changing barely a handful of words in this whole bill.

The Republican farm bill is filled with controversial provisions, and no one will tell us how they even got into the bill. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have asked. I can't get an answer. Maybe President Trump's ethically challenged White House opened its doors even wider to lobbyists and let them write key parts of this bill. Or perhaps an arch-conservative think tank was given the chance to airdrop its wish list into the bill.

But I suspect something more mundane and damaging. I think the Speaker viewed this bill as his last chance to enact sweeping cuts to safety net programs before he retires. Even the number of this bill, H.R. 2, was always reserved by the Speaker for his so-called welfare reform bill.

So I warn my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: make no mistake. This legislation is a transformation of our social safety net dressed up as a farm bill. It beats up, belittles, and demonizes poor people all across this country. It doesn't even try to put lipstick on this pig.

Mr. Speaker, last week it was reported that the Republican Conference brought in communicator Frank Luntz to try to wordsmith how Republicans can justify supporting this bill. They must be terrified. They know that just explaining the reality would appall and enrage most Americans.

Now, Mr. Luntz is the same guy who helped craft Speaker Gingrich's Contract with America. He earned PolitiFact's lie of the year in 2010 for one of his debunked claims on healthcare reform and even tried once in an interview to turn the term Orwellian into something positive. Mr. Speaker, he has his work cut out for him here because I don't even think Mr. Luntz can wordsmith something so cruel into something positive.

Now, here is how mean this bill really is. SNAP is our Nation's premier anti-hunger program, our first line of defense against hunger. People, including the most vulnerable among us--kids, the disabled, and the elderly--turn to it when there is no other option. For them, there is no plan B when they are struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from. With this bill, Republicans are cutting SNAP by over $20 billion. Millions of people would see their benefits slashed, and many would be cut off from assistance entirely.

Why are the Republicans doing this?

To pay for hoisting their latest unproven and way underfunded State- based workforce bureaucracy experiment on the entire Nation. That is why. I say ``unproven'' because I don't see any evidence or studies suggesting that any of this will even work. In fact, I have a study here that points out the flaws in this proposal.

It expands work requirements for poor parents while making millionaires and billionaires eligible for subsidies even if they don't live or work on a farm.

You can't make this stuff up. There is no evidence that this approach is effective. We have no idea whether States have the manpower or infrastructure to take this on. We have no idea how much it will cost States to put a recipient through a job training program. This bill would give States just $30 to train each person, when we know it costs thousands of dollars per person to fund robust job training programs.

Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if this weren't so serious.

Currently, States are testing the effectiveness of job training programs as a way to help SNAP recipients move out of poverty. But we aren't expecting to get the results of these pilot programs until 2021.

Shouldn't we wait to see the results of State pilot programs? Shouldn't we wait until we know what might work and what doesn't? Why should we force our Governors and States to gamble on a sweeping, untested bureaucracy that appears doomed to failure?

Clearly, the Republicans aren't going to let a lack of facts stop them from creating this massive, new government bureaucracy that will affect millions of vulnerable Americans. This is from a party that claims to want a government so small, they could drown it in a bathtub. Apparently, they want a government just small enough to leave millions of poor and working Americans with nowhere to turn.

This isn't about helping people; this is about putting up roadblocks that make nutrition assistance difficult, if not impossible, to get.

This legislation also severs the link between SNAP and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. This connection is what has allowed disabled and working families to receive credit for out-of- pocket heating and cooling expenses without unnecessary trips to the SNAP office. But the changes in this bill would force recipients to make those unnecessary trips, and they would lead to more hassles and avoidable errors and people falling through the cracks.

I think the Republican leaders in the House are the only people on this planet who believe that creating unnecessary hassles count as some kind of laudable reform.

The Republican farm bill would also eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility. This has been a critical option that States have used to help working families with kids and seniors during tough times. More than 40 States today use this option, including 12 States with Republican Governors. Eliminating it would cause 400,000 eligible households--close to 1 million people--to lose their food benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 265,000 students will lose access to free school lunches if this bill were to become law.

You know, when I was growing up, it was school bullies that went after kids' lunch money; it wasn't the United States Congress. This is shameful.

But let's also be clear here that eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility would throw close to 1 million people off of SNAP who work. Basically, it would deny SNAP benefits to people who earn under $16,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, what the hell is wrong with this place?

These people can't get through the year on that. That is not enough to feed one's self or one's family.

The Republican Congress, who rushed to raise taxes on 86 million middle class families to pay for a tax cut for large corporations and the richest 1 percent, is now trying to stop kids from getting school lunches and taking assistance away from families struggling with hunger.

This entire Congress has been one long, slow march toward making life harder for the poor, the hungry, and working Americans. I am tired of a Congress that prioritizes the rich, that looks out only for the wealthy.

The legislation we take up here today should reflect our values. But this bill doesn't reflect my values, Mr. Speaker. This is a farm bill that doesn't even make significant improvements to our agricultural programs to help farmers who are caught in the middle of the President's trade war.

It is an attack on those living in poverty. It trades in stereotypes to justify shredding our social safety net, and it is hell-bent on making hunger worse in this country. This Republican farm bill is disgusting, and the process that got us here is disgusting.

By the way, just so Members are clear, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. I say to my colleagues, you try living on that.

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

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

Under this bill, somebody who is working and earns like $15,800 a year up to like $23,000 a year, who works right now, and who currently receives SNAP would lose it under this. This is how you are rewarding their work. I just find that appalling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments. I think, again, if the gentleman reads this bill, he and his farmers should be concerned about this bill because it does not increase support for our farm safety net and support prices. So we have a lot of farmers who are deeply concerned about that part of the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, which provides the fix needed to implement the VA MISSION Act to ensure that it is not hindered by budget caps.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, we aren't done, so if the gentleman would like to yield me some time, that would be great.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to read the bill. Broad- based categorical eligibility gives States the flexibility to offer people who are struggling--more people, the SNAP benefit. There are many States, including mine, that basically offer SNAP to people who are at 200 percent of the poverty level. That is about $24,000. This bill changes the criteria.

So you could be working and making anywhere from $24,000 to like $15,900, and, right now, you are working and that is what you make and you are eligible for SNAP. This bill says you no longer can get that benefit. These are people who work, and this bill takes this nutrition benefit away from them.

I don't know how anybody could think that that is a good thing to do. I don't know how that reward works. What that does is punish people. That punishes individuals who are doing everything they possibly can to try to make ends meet.

And a lot of people, by the way, who qualify for SNAP who aren't working, qualify maybe for a month or two because they are out of work for only a month or two. This idea that SNAP creates this culture dependency is just a myth. The majority of people on SNAP work--who are able-bodied work. I want to make that point clear.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Delaware.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, who are very strongly opposed to this farm bill.

Consortium for Citizens

With Disabilities,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2018.

Re H.R. 2, Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (Farm Bill).

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi, The undersigned

members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities

(CCD) urge you to continue the longstanding bipartisan

commitment to protect and strengthen the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by rejecting proposals to

restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, cap or reduce funding,

or make harmful structural changes to SNAP in the Farm Bill.

CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations

working together to advocate for federal public policy that

ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment,

integration and inclusion of children and adults with

disabilities in all aspects of society.

In the United States, all too often food insecurity and

disability go together. Families that include people with

disabilities are two to three times more likely to experience

food insecurity than families that have no members with

disabilities. Similarly, people experiencing food insecurity

have increased likelihood of chronic illness and disability.

SNAP is vitally important for people with disabilities and

their families. By increasing access to adequate, nutritious

food SNAP plays a key role in reducing hunger and helping

people with disabilities to maximize their health and

participate in their communities.

Using an inclusive definition of ``disability,'' in 2015 an

estimated 11 million people with disabilities of all ages

received SNAP, representing roughly one in four SNAP

participants.

Roughly 4.4 million households with non-elderly adults with

disabilities received SNAP in 2016.

Non-elderly adults with disabilities who receive SNAP have

very low incomes, averaging only about $12,000 per year in

2016.

SNAP benefits are extremely modest, averaging $187 per

month for non-elderly people with disabilities in 2016--or

just $6 per day.

Existing SNAP time limits are harsh, unfair, and harm many

people with disabilities and their families by cutting off

essential food assistance. Federal law currently limits SNAP

eligibility for adults between the ages of 18 to 49 without

dependents to just three months out of every three years--

unless they can engage in work or job training activities at

least half time, or qualify for an exemption. These

provisions cut off food assistance at a time when people need

it most and do not result in increased employment and

earnings. At least 500,000 low-income individuals nationwide

lost SNAP in 2016 due to this time limit.

Many people with disabilities are already hurt by SNAP time

limits, despite existing exemptions for people who receive

governmental or private benefits on the basis of a disability

or are able to document that they are ``physically or

mentally unfit for employment.''

For example, in a study of SNAP participants subject to

time limits referred to participate in work activities in

Franklin County, Ohio, one-third reported a ``physical or

mental limitation''.

Cutting off food assistance from SNAP would only make it

harder for people to work and increase their economic self-

sufficiency. We strongly oppose any action that would cut off

or reduce SNAP benefits, narrow eligibility, or force more

people to navigate harsh and unnecessary program rules,

including people with disabilities and their families.

In particular, we are concerned that the Farm Bill advanced

by the House Committee on Agriculture on April 18, 2018

includes a number of provisions that would harm people with

disabilities and their families. Small increases in the

proposed bill are insufficient to make up for significant

benefit reductions.

New work requirements with highly punitive rules would cut

off SNAP benefits for many people--including in families with

children, adults, and seniors with disabilities. It may seem

simple to assert that ``people with disabilities will be

exempt,'' but converting such a statement into an effective

policy process is complicated, expensive, and fundamentally

flawed. Many people with disabilities receive SNAP, but do

not meet SNAP's statutory definitions of ``disability'' or

have not been so identified. Under SNAP, states have no

obligation to help people prove they are exempt, even if they

have difficulty obtaining the necessary records or

verification from a doctor. In addition, states are under no

obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have

access to the full array of services they might need to

work--such as accessible transportation, supported

employment, and personal care aide services. People with

disabilities often want to work, but need additional supports

and services to obtain and keep jobs, in addition to facing

discrimination and misconceptions about their ability to

work.

Underfunded work programs would be woefully inadequate to

meet training needs. Proposed new investments in SNAP

employment and training programs--funded in large part by

benefit cuts--amount to only about $30 per person per month.

This amount would be grossly insufficient to provide adequate

employment services for people subject to proposed new work

requirements, including jobseekers with disabilities.

New reporting requirements would create major hurdles to

benefits. Proposed new reporting requirements related to

eligibility, employment and training, and time limits would

be extremely difficult for many people with disabilities to

navigate and comply with. For example, ending a decades-old

simplification measure and instead requiring people to share

utility bills with the SNAP office--or else, see their

benefits reduced--is harsh, unnecessary, and burdensome both

for SNAP participants and states.

If Congress wishes to explore meaningful opportunities for

SNAP participants to increase self-sufficiency through

employment, we recommend awaiting the results of the

Employment & Training pilot projects authorized under the

2014 Farm Bill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

awarded pilot grants in 2015, all 10 state programs are

operational, and evaluation activities will operate through

2021. Already, a number of pilot states have cited multiple

barriers faced by participants, including ``health issues.''

It will be important for USDA and the evaluators to carefully

explore the experiences and outcomes of people with

disabilities and their families in these pilot programs.

Congress should await the final pilot evaluations before

considering any changes in these areas.

We call on you to reject proposals that would weaken SNAP's

effectiveness as our nation's foremost anti-hunger program by

limiting access, reducing benefits, or creating

administrative hurdles. We urge all Members to vote no on the

Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 as approved by the

Agriculture Committee on April 18, and instead to work on a

bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect SNAP as part of

the Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

CCD members:

ACCSES, Allies for Independence, American Association of

People with Disabilities, American Association on Health and

Disability, American Diabetes Association, American

Foundation for the Blind, American Network of Community

Options and Resources (ANCOR), American Psychological

Association, Association of University Centers on

Disabilities (AUCD), Autism Society, Autistic Self Advocacy

Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Brain Injury

Association of America, Center for Public Representation,

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Community Legal Services

of Philadelphia, Council of Administrators of Special

Education, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund,

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional

Children (DEC), Easterseals.

Epilepsy Foundation, Institute for Educational Leadership,

The Jewish Federations of North America, Justice in Aging,

Lutheran Services in America Disability Network, National

Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils

on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of State

Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Association

of State

Head Injury Administrators, National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare, National Disability Institute,

National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome

Congress, National Organization of Social Security Claimants'

Representatives (NOSSCR), School Social Work Association of

America, SourceAmerica, TASH, The Arc of the United States,

United Spinal Association.

Joined by:

Lakeshore Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from No Kid Hungry, Share Our Strength, an initiative strongly opposed to this bill.

[From No Kid Hungry, May 15, 2018]

Congress Must Vote No on Farm Bill

Washington, DC.--This week the House of Representatives

will vote on the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R.

2), also known as the Farm Bill. The following is a statement

from Share Our Strength's Senior Vice President Lisa Davis

about the harmful impact the bill would have on struggling

families in America. Share Our Strength officially opposes

the bill.

``This week, the House of Representatives will vote on the

Farm Bill. On balance, this bill will ultimately increase

poverty and hunger in the United States and Share Our

Strength cannot support it.

Thirteen million children today are growing up in families

that worry about hunger. Even more live in families on the

brink, just one lost job, one medical emergency, one broken

water heater away from hunger. Consider:

A study by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of

all Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency

expense.

Another study from the National Center for Children in

Poverty shows that nearly half of all children in the United

States live ``dangerously close'' to the poverty line. 6 in

10 Americans will spend at least one year of their lives in

poverty.

And in another survey recently conducted on behalf of No

Kid Hungry, two-thirds of low-income parents said they would

not be able to afford enough food for their families if they

were hit with a single, unplanned expense of $1,500.

These are families trying to do their best to survive.

These are the families we all know. It's the single working

mom in California, worried about whether to pay the

electricity bill or pay for groceries this month. It's the

grandmother trying to raise her grandkids in Appalachia. And

it's the military veteran trying to find enough work hours to

support his son in Central Pennsylvania.

And while this legislation includes some needed

improvements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP), such as increasing asset limits and indexing them to

inflation, these changes are significantly outweighed by

harmful ones, such as eliminating Broad Based Categorical

Eligibility (BBCE) and increasing administrative burdens on

states and imposing penalties on adults who are unable to

comply with the expanded work requirements in a given month.

We believe a good job is the best pathway out of poverty,

but there is little reason to think the policies in this Farm

Bill will increase employment. It imposes harsh penalties on

beneficiaries who drop below the required number of hours in

a month, locking them out of SNAP for a full year the first

time and 3 years if it happens again. imagine a single mom

barely getting 20 hours of work a week whose child gets strep

throat or the flu. Or the rural dad whose car breaks down. Or

the 55-year-old house cleaner whose back goes out.

This is all counterintuitive. Adding hurdles and punitive

restrictions won't help people find jobs or get back on their

feet. But it will increase hunger and hardship for many

families.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office also reports

that this legislation will lead to more than 265,000 kids

losing free school meals during the school year, a double

whammy for poor, working families. Research demonstrates the

deep connections between hunger and health, particularly for

children. When kids don't get the fuel they need to nourish

their developing minds and bodies, they are more likely to

get sick and do poorly in school, and they are much less

likely to access a future free from poverty.

We urge members of the House of Representatives to take a

stand for children and families and oppose this

legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of over 60 child advocacy organizations opposed to the bill.

May 9, 2018.

Dear Representative: As child advocates in the areas of

hunger and nutrition, poverty, health, welfare, housing, and

education, we are writing to express our opposition to the

Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), which will

harm the millions of children who rely on federal nutrition

programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP) for access to consistent, healthy food. In the

interests of our nation's babies, children and youth we

strongly urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2.

SNAP is a proven anti-hunger and anti-poverty program for

children, which also lowers the odds of household and child

food insecurity, and of children's anemia, poor health,

hospitalization for failure to thrive, and developmental

delays. Research has also found that receiving SNAP in early

childhood improved high school graduation rates, adult

earnings, and adult health. Today, nearly 20 million children

participate in SNAP, representing 44 percent of the program's

recipients and receiving nearly half of every SNAP dollar. In

addition, school breakfast and lunch programs provide many of

these same children a nutritious morning and lunchtime meal

each day. Because children experience both poverty and food

insecurity at higher rates than the general population,

federal nutrition programs such as SNAP and school meals are

critical supports that help them develop, learn, and succeed.

To that end, we are very concerned about the impact H.R. 2

would have on our nation's children. In fact, several

provisions in the Nutrition Title of H.R. 2 directly threaten

access to vital nutrition programs for the countless children

and youth that we represent:

Drastic Program Eligibility Changes: H.R. 2 Makes several

harmful changes to state options that simplify SNAP

eligibility requirements to improve access to SNAP for poor

and low-income families with children. These changes would:

Expose Low-Income Children to a SNAP ``Benefit Cliff'':

H.R. 2 eliminates Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE),

which gives states additional flexibility and efficiency in

granting SNAP eligibility. This change will reinstate a

benefit cliff in a majority of states, jeopardizing food

assistance for 400,000 households who are scraping by on

earnings just above 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Undermine the Ability of Poor and Low-Income Families with

Children to Build Savings: Similarly, the virtual elimination

by

H.R. 2 of Categorical Eligibility will mean many states will

have to introduce a counterproductive and costly process of

asset testing for SNAP eligibility. As a result, H.R. 2 would

cause many families to lose eligibility solely because of red

tape, and force other families choose between meeting their

basic need for food and building up the savings and resources

that would help them achieve economic mobility.

Threaten Poor and Low-Income Children's Access to School

Meals: Under current law, children who receive SNAP are

directly certified for free school meal programs. These meals

help combat childhood hunger, while playing an important role

in improving academic achievement and test scores and

reducing absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline referrals. By

forcing families off of SNAP due to changes in categorical

eligibility, H.R. 2 would break this vital link between SNAP

receipt and school meals for low-income and poor children. As

a result, some 265,000 children stand to lose access to free

school meals.

Undermine SNAP benefits for Poor and Low-Income Children

Whose Families Rely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP is a program that helps low-income

households afford their monthly utility bills. Under current

law, some states allow households to use LIHEAP benefits

greater than $20/month as proof of significant energy

expenses, creating a streamlined method for families to

access a modest increase in their SNAP benefit. However, H.R.

2 removes this option for households that do not have an

elderly member, effectively requiring poor and low-income

families with children to provide substantial documentation

of energy bills on a frequent basis for caseworkers to

determine their utility allowance, which could discourage

them from seeking the larger benefit or decrease its size.

Harsh Work Requirements: Under current law, existing SNAP

work requirements aimed at childless adults already have

unintended and harmful consequences for children (for

instance, those who rely on pooled resources from extended

family and Non-Custodial Parents) and youth (such as those

aging out of foster care.) Yet in spite of limited supporting

evidence, H.R. 2 intensifies and expands work requirements,

reduces state flexibilities for exemptions, and requires

states to implement costly training and employment programs

that will take funds from food benefits to support a

bureaucracy that will not provide quality services to people.

The consequences of these changes could be devastating for

countless children and youth, including:

The 13.4 million school-aged children on SNAP: H.R. 2 takes

the unprecedented step of expanding work requirements to

adults with school-aged children. This provision risks the

wellbeing of children whose parents or guardians are: 1)

acting as a caretaker for a loved one such as a child with a

disability; 2) have physical or mental health disabilities

that don't qualify as a disability under the legal

definition; 3) face substantial barriers to work, including

substance abuse issues or domestic violence; 4) working but

struggling to meet the 20 hour per week threshold or the

burdensome documentation requirements; and 5) have difficulty

obtaining childcare or transportation. For these parents or

guardians, losing SNAP translates to a benefit cut for their

whole household, meaning there will be less food on the table

for their children. Some parents and guardians may also

erroneously believe that their inability to meet these new

work requirements makes their children ineligible for SNAP as

well, and as a result opt out of applying for or renewing

benefits for the entire family.

In addition, children in very vulnerable families may be

impacted by the new requirements, such as:

Children in the Care of Grandparents: Today, more than 2.5

million children are being raised by their grandparents or

other relatives, in part because families are dealing with

parental alcohol and substance abuse issues, which are

growing rapidly due to the opioid epidemic. And already,

these families face barriers to accessing the full array of

benefits and services they need. H.R. 2 would further

threaten the ability of grandparents and other older

relatives to care for children because it expands work

requirements for adults up to age 60 who are caring for

children over six years of age.

Children in Families with a History of Family Violence:

H.R. 2 requires parents fleeing family violence with their

children to meet the new work requirements unless they

receive a state exemption. In addition, H.R. 2 requires

parents to cooperate with state Child Support Enforcement

(CSE) efforts in order receive SNAP benefits--a drastic

change from current law, under which 45 states, DC, and the

Virgin Islands have declined to link the two. Yet H.R. 2

effectively eliminates existing state flexibility around CSE

cooperation, meaning parents who would like to apply for SNAP

but are afraid of CSE requirements which would link them to

their abusers are forced to choose between safety and feeding

their children.

Children in Military and Veteran Families: Many veteran and

military families need help feeding themselves and their

children. Today, households that include a veteran with a

disability are nearly twice as likely to lack access to

adequate food as households that do not include someone with

a disability, and sadly, food insecurity rates are nearly

double among post-9/11 veterans. Furthermore, currently-

serving military families often experience food insecurity

because of financial emergencies, low pay, and crisis levels

of chronic unemployment or underemployment of military

spouses in a society where most families need dual incomes to

live. By subjecting these parents, including those suffering

from PTSD, to the new work requirements, H.R. 2 penalizes

families in need who have already sacrificed so much for our

nation.

Youth aging out of foster care and unaccompanied, homeless

youth: Youth aging out of foster care often face various

challenges, including homelessness, difficulty affording

education, and finding employment. Unaccompanied homeless

youth and young adults (who lack safe stable housing and who

are not in the care of a parent or guardian) experience

similar difficulties, especially when they reach age 18.

Existing SNAP work requirements already create a substantial

barrier for these young people from accessing food

assistance, because they technically meet the definition of a

childless adult. Under the harsh requirements in H.R. 2,

these vulnerable young adults will face even larger obstacles

to food assistance.

The Farm Bill represents an important opportunity for

policy solutions that will strengthen and improve nutrition

programs for our nation's children. Instead, H.R. 2 is slated

to reduce spending on SNAP benefits by more than $20 billion

over 10 years and will disproportionately hurt children

through its harmful provisions. We urge you to protect our

nation's children and vote NO on H.R. 2.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Signed,

1,000 Days, African American Health Alliance, Afterschool

Alliance, American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Council of

Human Service Providers, Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs, Campaign for Youth Justice, Center for

Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America,

Child Labor Coalition, Child Welfare League of America,

Children's Defense Fund, Children's Leadership Council,

Children's Advocacy Institute, Coalition on Human Needs,

Covenant House International, Division for Early Childhood of

the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC), Every Child

Matters, Families USA, Family Focused Treatment Association.

Family Focused Treatment Association, First Five Years

Fund, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research &

Action Center, Forum for Youth Investment, Generations

United, Healthy Teen Network, Jumpstart, Lutheran Services in

America, Methodist Children's Home Society, MomsRising,

National Alliance of Children's Trust & Prevention Funds,

National Association for Family Child Care, National

Association for the Education of Young Children, National

Association of Counsel for Children, National Center on

Adoption and Permanency, National Consumers League, National

Council of Jewish Women, National Diaper Bank Network,

National Health Law Program.

National Human Services Assembly, National Indian Child

Welfare Association, National Migrant Seasonal Head Start

Association, National Network for Youth, National PTA,

National Urban League, National WIC Association, National

Women's Law Center, Oral Health America, Parents as Teachers,

Partnership for America's Children, PolicyLink, Prosperity

Now, Public Advocacy for Kids, Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Coalition.

RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law,

SchoolHouse Connection, Share Our Strength, Social Advocates

for Youth San Diego, SparkAction, StandUp For Kids, The

Criminalization of Poverty Project at the Institute for

Policy Studies, The National Association for Bilingual

Education, The W. Haywood Burns Institute, UnidosUS, Western

Regional Advocacy Project, Youth Villages, YWCA USA.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Education Association strongly opposed to this bill.

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members

of the National Education Association and the 50 million

students they serve, we strongly urge you to VOTE NO on the

Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2) and oppose any

amendments that further weaken the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program. This bill makes unnecessary changes to

eligibility requirements that could reduce the number of

students certified for free school meals. The bill also

imposes additional work requirements for adults that will

make it harder for some people to get or keep critical

nutrition benefits. Votes associated with this issue may be

included in NEA's Report Card for the 115th Congress.

The Farm Bill, as this reauthorization is commonly known,

provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP), which is our nation's largest anti-hunger

program. By providing monthly benefits to eligible low-income

people to purchase food, SNAP plays a critical role in

reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, and improving

family security, child and adult health, and employment. SNAP

reaches key vulnerable populations--78 percent of SNAP

households include a child, an elderly person, or a person

with disabilities; 84 percent of all SNAP benefits go to such

households. SNAP lifted 3.6 million Americans out of poverty

in 2016, according to the Census Bureau's Supplemental

Poverty Measure. By providing much needed economic support,

SNAP allows families to have sufficient nutrition during

times of unemployment, fluctuating incomes, and low-wage

work.

Children living in households that receive SNAP benefits

are eligible to receive free school meals. The healthy meals

that low-income children receive at school fight hunger,

improve academic performance, and help reduce absenteeism,

tardiness, and discipline referrals. According to the Food

Research and Action Center, linking children in SNAP

households to school meals is so important that Congress

required all school districts participating in the National

School Lunch Program to directly certify their students for

free school meals.

H.R. 2 undermines the important link between SNAP and free

school meals in the 28 states that have chosen a broad based

categorical eligibility option under current

rules that expands SNAP eligibility to assist working

families that still struggle to make ends meet. According to

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this could

impact as many as 265,000 students nationwide. While students

could apply for school meals via a burdensome paper process,

there is no guarantee that they will still be eligible for

the program or recertified in a timely manner. This would

cost their families even more when they have just lost SNAP

benefits. Further, this puts an enormous administrative

burden on schools to revert to a costly paper-based system,

Direct Certification for SNAP also provides the foundation

for the Community Eligibility Provision, a hugely successful

option that allows over 20,000 high-poverty schools to offer

free breakfast and lunch to their students. The provision

eliminates the need for schools to collect and process school

meal applications, which allows schools to focus on providing

healthy and appealing meals instead of processing paperwork.

Schools are eligible to implement community eligibility if at

least 40 percent of their students are certified to receive

free school meals without submitting an application.

Reducing the number of students who are directly certified

by changing the rules for broad-based categorical eligibility

means that fewer schools will be eligible to implement

community eligibility, and many schools that are eligible

will find that it is no longer financially viable, because

fewer of their meals would be reimbursed at the free rate.

This would increase unnecessary paperwork for schools and

inhibit student success.

The proposed changes in H.R. 2 to broad-based categorical

eligibility will result in working families losing much

needed food benefits. It also means that their children could

lose free school meals, amplifying the negative impact of the

cut. It will mean more children go hungry at home as well as

at school.

The bill further imposes aggressive new work requirements,

which are unnecessary, unworkable and likely to do more harm

than good. It would require SNAP participants ages 18 through

59 who are not disabled or raising a child under 6 to prove--

every month--that they're working at least 20 hours a week,

participating at least 20 hours a week in a work program, or

a combination of the two. These new requirements would force

states to develop large new bureaucracies that would need to

track millions of SNAP recipients, but likely would do little

to boost employment, particularly given that the new funding

provided in the bill for job training and work slots would

amount to just $30 per month for those recipients who need a

work slot to retain SNAP benefits, according to the CBPP.

Further, the requirements would leave low-income people with

barriers to employment--such as limited job skills or family

members with illness--with neither earnings nor food

assistance.

We also have particular concern about amendments filed for

Rules Committee consideration that would undermine the

nutrition guidelines for school meals programs. These

guidelines are currently being implemented in schools, and

have already led to increased fruit and vegetable consumption

by students. Good nutrition is particularly important for

students from low-income families, who may eat as many as

half of their calories every day at school. Additionally,

USDA has only recently published an interim rule for school

meals that provides additional flexibility on the guidelines

for schools. These amendments would only add uncertainty to

this process and threaten the nutritional quality of the

meals offered to students.

We urge you to oppose any amendments that could threaten

mandatory safety net programs beyond SNAP, such as Medicaid,

Medicare, Social Security, and Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families.

The bill further includes $65 million in loans and grants

administered by the Department of Agriculture to support

Association Health Plans (AHP) offered through organizations

that will eliminate coverage of essential health benefits

(categories of care). These plans may appear to be a less

expensive option than current small group market plans that

include comprehensive coverage and consumer protections.

However, in light of recently proposed rules, AHPs will soon

not be required to cover services such as prescription drugs,

mental health and maternity care leading to insufficient and

inadequate care for children and adults.

We strongly urge you to Vote No on the Farm Bill, any

amendments aimed at weakening the healthy guidelines for

school meals, and any amendments that make it even more

difficult for SNAP participants to receive critical nutrition

benefits.

Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,

National Education Association.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I am the ranking member in the Nutrition Subcommittee, and I sat through 23 hearings. I heard Republican witnesses and Democratic witnesses, and all of them said the same thing: the SNAP program is important; don't mess around with it.

I didn't hear anybody--anybody hint at embracing what is in this farm bill under the nutrition title, a title, by the way, which I, as the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, didn't even see until it was made public.

My friend from Georgia talks about bipartisanship. I mean, give me a break. I mean, you can say it all you want, but the bottom line is that it doesn't exist in the Agriculture Committee. The process was offensive, and even more offensive is what the end product is going to do to vulnerable people in this country.

You know, this is not a debate about able-bodied adults who aren't working. You know, that is a very complicated population. I actually asked for a hearing on that population, and I was denied that right. You ought to know who this population is. It is a complicated population.

Many of these able-bodied adults without dependents who are not working or who are not in the job training programs are our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan having difficulty reintegrating in the community; they are young people graduating out of foster care; they are people with undiagnosed mental illnesses. If we did a hearing, you would know who this population is. This is more than a press release.

I am sick and tired of people being stereotyped all the time. And by the way, you punish people who are working. You know, by eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, there are people right now who are working, who make, you know, between $50,800 a year and maybe $24,000 a year, they work, and they get this benefit to put food on the table.

And yet you are making changes that will deny them that benefit. They are working. You say you want to reward work. Well, what are you thinking when you take this nutrition benefit away from these people, who are doing everything right. When you take this SNAP benefit away from adults, you are taking it away from their children as well. And you heard over and over and over again that when people lose their SNAP benefit, their kids lose access to a free breakfast and lunch at school. This is awful.

Send this bill back to committee. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just mischaracterized the very partisan process that occurred in the Agriculture Committee in which Democrats were totally shut out.

I want to know: What are the remedies that we have at this point in the debate to be able to correct the record so we can correct the misrepresentations?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that nobody walked away from the table; only after we were totally shut out of the process.

As I mentioned in my opening statement--if the gentleman were paying attention--the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, actually tried to offer suggestions and was totally shut out.

I am the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee. You mentioned the ranking members usually get informed as to what is going on. I didn't see it until it was made public.

This was the most offensive process I have ever witnessed.

And, by the way, the product in this ag bill--which I don't think the gentleman has read, based on some of the things he has said--but this final product does not represent any of the hearings we had.

So this process in the Agriculture Committee, which has been, historically, probably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress, was basically thrown into chaos as a result of the behavior of the majority.

I just say to the gentleman: You can try to spin this all you want, but the bottom line is that this has never happened before. And Collin Peterson--I just want to say--is probably the most bipartisan Member of this House. If you can't strike a bipartisan deal with Collin Peterson, you can't strike a bipartisan deal with anybody.

But that is not what this was about. This was about advancing an agenda, quite frankly, that is going to hurt millions of vulnerable people in this country, and I find it offensive.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't claim to know as much about the farm bill as my friend from Massachusetts does. He has the privilege of representing his constituents both on the Rules Committee and on the Ag Committee.

I represent my constituents on the Rules Committee and on the Budget Committee. I work with CBO day in and day out, as my colleague knows.

CBO is absolutely charged with being the nonpartisan scorekeeper in all of these budgetary matters. But as the gentleman recalls, having worked for a former member of the Rules Committee himself, when Republicans passed and President Clinton signed the unfunded mandates point of order, it was designed with one goal and one goal only in mind, and that was to make sure that when Congress acts, it considers the impacts of folks back home. It considers whether or not it is shirking a responsibility in Washington and shifting that responsibility to State and local governments back home.

I will tell you with certainty, Mr. Speaker, that not a single Member on this side of the aisle has wavered in that commitment from when this bill passed in 1995 until today.

What my friend from Massachusetts references are programs that are implemented by the States in order to receive a Federal benefit. We see this happen all the time, day in and day out. You get all the transportation money that you want, but you need to alter your speed limit if you want to receive that transportation money. You can get all the transportation money you want, but you need to deal with your drinking age if you want to get that money.

What we are talking about today at its core, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not, at a time when we have the lowest unemployment rate in my lifetime, at a time when we have more jobs available to be filled in America than ever before in American history, whether it is a burden to say if you want to receive a Federal benefit, that being food stamps, that you should try to find a job first. If you can't find that job, we should get you enrolled in a job training program so that you can find the job.

At the end of the day, the farm bill aims to do two things with the SNAP program: number one, is continue to provide a safety net for families in need. But number two, to make sure it remains that net and tries to lift folks

out of poverty instead of trap them in poverty for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, this unfunded mandates point of order, I was in Congress at the time that it passed, has been a speed bump, a needed speed bump in the consideration of legislation time and time again.

Now, sadly, more often than not, we see it as a dilatory tactic on the House floor. We see it raised as something just to try to slow down the process and gum up the works.

That is not what is happening here today. I want to stipulate that that is true.

My friend from Massachusetts raises a legitimate concern, but what I would say to my colleagues is this is a task, an obligation that has been placed on the States in consideration of receiving a Federal benefit. Folks are not mandated to do anything at all, but if we are to participate in the program, if folks are to continue to work through the program, if we are to get people back to work, if we are to provide this safety net, if we are to succeed on behalf of our constituents, as we all want to do, then we are going to have a partnership between the Federal Government and the State governments to make that happen.

Again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker. He is an authority on the farm bill and an authority on the SNAP program. But as far as the unfunded mandates point of order goes, I would encourage my colleagues to reject that request today and to vote in favor of proceeding with consideration of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I recognize my friend's passion. I tell you, this is not going to be the end of my friend's passion. We are going to be here for another hour, together, talking about the farm bill, and I suspect we will see even a new degree of passion because my friend from Massachusetts is incredibly committed to his point of view on the SNAP program.

What I would tell you, Mr. Speaker--and I will speak on behalf of my Governor from the great State of Georgia; I will speak on behalf of my legislators and my administrators in the great State of Georgia--folks want to be a part of lifting people out of poverty. Nobody wants to be a part of trapping people in a cycle of poverty, and there is absolutely, Mr. Speaker, a degree of complicity that this Chamber has often been involved in by saying: This is the best we can do. We can't do any better, and we are just going to resign ourselves to the fact that generational poverty will continue. I say nonsense, and this bill is a step in the right direction.

I share my friend's frustration that what should have been a bipartisan farm bill, what traditionally is a bipartisan farm bill, went off the rails somewhere in the process and folks walked away from the table. We can assign blame however we choose to do it; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that is going to take a major step forward in lifting folks out of poverty, a major step forward in putting people back to work, a major step forward in making sure that folks who receive Federal benefits are those who need Federal benefits, but those who have opportunities to do more and to do better for their families have partners in both their Federal and State governments to make that happen. I think that is what all my colleagues here want.

I encourage my friends to reject my friend's point of order and to vote to consider this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), an Ag Committee member and my fellow Rules Committee member, 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.

I thank my colleagues for standing with me to consider this rule and then these three underlying measures today.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today, House Resolution 891, makes in order three pieces of legislation. The one that you heard discussed already today is H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. Two other measures included in this rule are H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, and S. 2372, the VA MISSION Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this week is Police Week, and police officers serving our communities every day with distinction get this 1 week a year that we all take a moment to pause and say thank you. President Trump made that point yesterday just outside the Capitol talking about these heroes who put their life on the line absolutely every day.

To quote the President, he said: ``Your moms and dads were among the bravest Americans to ever live'' when he was talking to the children of fallen officers. Of course, he was absolutely right.

For that reason I am particularly pleased that the rule today brings up the Protect and Serve Act of 2018. It brings it to the floor under a structured amendment process. The bill makes it a Federal crime to intentionally cause or to attempt to cause serious bodily harm to any law enforcement officer. I say that again, Mr. Speaker. It makes it a Federal crime to attempt to cause or intentionally cause serious bodily harm to any law enforcement officer.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to speak in the absolute strongest terms when we speak on behalf of our men and women in law enforcement uniforms. In fact, just last night in the Rules Committee, my friend, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, said there is virtually no disagreement between the parties and the Chambers on this legislation.

Another bill we can agree on, Mr. Speaker, is the VA MISSION Act. In fact, I was with one of The American Legion chapters in our district just Monday talking about the very provisions in this bill and how they can make a substantive difference for our men and women who have served us in the Armed Forces.

This is a four corners agreement bill, Mr. Speaker, and by four corners, I mean the chairmen and the ranking members on the House side and on the Senate side have agreed on this legislation. They have worked together on this legislation, and they have put it together in a way that we can all be proudly supportive of that final product.

Let me tell you what this bill will do in specifics, Mr. Speaker.

It consolidates seven duplicative community care programs into one program that is easier for our veterans to understand and to access. It ensures that the Veterans Choice Program has enough funding to continue working for our veterans for yet another year as the committees continue to perfect that program. I am sure you hear the same constructive counsel that I do, Mr. Speaker. Good for Congress for letting us opt out so that we can get the services we need quickly. But the Veterans Choice Program still has work to do to get those agreements approved promptly and get those doctors reimbursed promptly.

The VA MISSION Act, Mr. Speaker, also creates a fair and transparent process for a comprehensive audit of the VA's physical facilities. Where are those regions of the country that are underserved? Where are those regions of the country where consolidation would better serve?

The VA can transform its aging infrastructure. This bill provides a comprehensive audit process so that we can modernize the VA for today's veterans. It expands the caregiver program, Mr. Speaker, to provide the benefits to pre-9/11 veterans so that they are in parity with those benefits of post-9/11 veterans, and it provides VA provider recruitment and retention efforts so that our veterans have access to those medical personnel that they desperately need.

These reforms aren't just supported by those four corners that I mentioned, the Republicans and Democrats who lead the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House and who lead the committees in the Senate, but they are also supported by over 30 veterans' service organizations from across the country, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Roe highlighted in the Rules Committee just last night.

I don't pretend that these measures do everything for everyone, Mr. Speaker. They do not. But it is another in a long step of bills making progress on behalf of the American people. Whether we are talking about our men and women in law enforcement uniforms, Mr. Speaker, or whether we are talking about our men and women who have worn our military uniforms, it is another example of how Chairman Roe

and Ranking Member Walz and our colleagues in the Senate are taking steps forward to repay our debts.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we have already heard discussed, this rule would make in order H.R. 2, our Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. It doesn't just make in order the base text, Mr. Speaker, it also makes in order 20 amendments that have been offered by both Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber who would like to try to make that bill even better. Twenty amendments have been made in order already, and when we finish debate here on the floor, my colleague from Massachusetts and I will return to the Rules Committee upstairs, and we will consider yet another round of amendments this afternoon so that we can continue to perfect this bill throughout the week.

Mr. Speaker, one rule, three bills--three bills that have the ability to make a difference for families across the country north, south, east, and west. I hope my colleagues will support this rule, get involved in that underlying debate, and support those bills on final passage as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say I agree with my friend. Asking single, working-age, healthy, nondisabled men to go to work is going to make their life harder. Going to work every day is hard. But I would also say to my friend that it is going to make their life better. It is a value that we should share, not a value that we should repudiate.

This happens to be an area of disagreement, Mr. Speaker. There are so many areas of agreement we could be focusing on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

I agree with my friend. I think, as a general rule, partisan approaches are the wrong way. This is certainly not what my chairman desired. It is certainly not where any of us wanted to end up. When folks walk away from the table, it is where we do in fact end up.

This is the start of the process. This is not the end of the process. I regret the way that this has sorted out for my ag friends. But we can't do nothing because folks have gotten up and walked away from the table. We have to continue to do what our constituents have asked us to do, and this is a good step in that direction.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the farm economy is the biggest contributor to Georgia GDP. Georgia families wake up every day back home and go out and often, in some cases, are working land that their father worked before them and their grandfather worked before them.

We have had the Georgia Farm Bureau in town pleading with us to bring some certainty to ag policy.

There are two parts to a farm bill, for all the reasons that folks who got here long before I did can explain: why it is we do a food stamp half of a farm bill and an actual farmer half of the farm bill.

It is so often true that the SNAP program gets all the conversation, Mr. Speaker. But as you heard from my friend from Colorado, while the money is not where the farmers and those farm families are, that is certainly where the policy is.

It has been true time and time again that, in a collaborative, bipartisan, bicameral way, we have come together as a House and a Senate and moved policy forward to provide market certainty for those farmers.

You don't always appreciate the farmers in your community, Mr. Speaker, when you can go to the grocery store and grab anything you want

at absolutely any time you want. Those things don't happen by accident. They happen with a whole lot of sweat equity, a whole lot of risk- taking, and, candidly, with a whole lot of prayer going on across farm communities in this land.

This bill responds to some of the marketplace needs that we are finding in the 21st century. You are going to see those collaborative veins throughout this measure, Mr. Speaker. I hope my colleagues will look not just at the SNAP program, but also at the certainty that we will provide to the very hardworking farm families across this country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my first time on the floor with our new colleague from Pennsylvania. I appreciate not just his service here, but his service to our country in general. I feel his pain.

It is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill, and we have got ways to do it. I have been here 7 years. I come down here time and time again to find good bills, Mr. Speaker, and I am always frustrated that we can't get it there.

What I have determined, Mr. Speaker, that I will share with you and with my friend from Pennsylvania is that the reason is because you folks don't agree with me. That is what I have decided is why I can't get to those perfect bills, because try as I might, I cannot get 434 other people to agree with me on everything all the time.

I will tell my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, the most discouraging day I have had in this institution was after we passed the Budget Control Act and we picked four of our finest Republicans and four of our finest Democrats from the House and also four from the Senate--Republicans, Democrats--and we locked them in a room together for 3 months. We said: Look at some of these mandatory spending programs like you have talked about. Look at the discretionary programs. Across-the-board budget cuts are nonsensical. They don't reflect American priorities at all. So get together, talk to one another, work through it, and figure out a way that we can make the books balance so we don't mortgage our children's and our grandchildren's futures but so that we also keep the commitments that we have made to families today.

They met for 3 months, and they walked out of that room having looked at hundreds of trillions of dollars in Federal spending and agreed on not one penny of change together. I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker--well, you remember how discouraging that day was.

Moving these dollars from mandatory spending to discretionary spending is absolutely going to put additional pressures on the budget process--I see my friend from Minnesota nodding his head; he is a true champion for our veterans--but, by golly, we have got to stand up and say yes to those dollars.

I got excoriated back home for voting in favor of raising the nondefense discretionary limits, but I have to go home and tell the story of how I am meeting promises to veterans that were not going to get met otherwise. I have got to go home and tell the story about how I am meeting promises for children that weren't going to get met otherwise. And I have got to go home and tell the story of how I don't have 218 votes to do it my way, and the only way to get anything done around here is in partnership.

Candidly, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a better example than the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Walz' leadership, Dr. Roe's leadership. Time and time again, I see these two men go and not follow their own hearts and passions but try to do what is best for everyone, try to find a way forward when folks had bet against them and said you couldn't find a way forward.

I hear the concerns of my new colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, and I believe he is absolutely right; we are going to run up against that conversation next year. The question is will we have the courage to stand up together and fund those priorities next year.

I am looking forward to the great outpouring of bipartisanship we are going to see in support of the VA MISSION Act today, and I will look forward to the great outpouring of support when the funding time comes to make sure we are as committed to those promises tomorrow as we are together this afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers remaining, so I am prepared to close when the gentleman from Massachusetts is, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Minnesota mentioned folks who might be watching this debate from their offices or from their homes. I think it is a shame that we don't often get to the core of what some of our disagreements are.

As we sit here today, it is a fact that there are more job openings in America than at any other time in American history. That is a fact.

It is a fact that, as we sit here getting ready to move further into the new millennium, there are more able-bodied single men out of the workforce than ever before--that is a fact--folks who have decided not to work.

Now, there is no disagreement in this body about providing food assistance to hungry kids--none. None. The disagreement in this body is whether or not, with more job openings than ever before in American history, with more employers saying they cannot find workers, with more employers saying ``we need to find new visa programs to get unskilled labor into America because we don't have enough unskilled workers to do the work here in America''--should the working families who pay the bills in this country support able-bodied, childless, healthy men?

That is part of the question, and I would think that is something on which we can agree. But we are not going to have that pointed conversation, Mr. Speaker, because there are more sympathetic targets to go after.

If you walk in to a USDA facility or your State facility that is administrating and you apply for food stamps, Mr. Speaker, if you qualify for food stamps, you will get them. You heard my friend from Massachusetts reference categorical eligibility. That means if you qualify for a different benefit, not food stamps, we will throw in food stamps, too.

Well, now, to be fair, that idea came about in some conservative circles, as well, to say let's eliminate some of the paperwork requirements. Let's make it easier for folks to apply for a whole host of benefits. But categorical eligibility, as it exists today, Mr. Speaker, says you don't qualify for the benefit on your own, but you do if you--if you qualify for a second benefit, we will give you this one as well.

Mr. Speaker, saying that you are going to eliminate categorical eligibility is to say you are going to give food stamps to people who qualify for food stamps. You are going to give

SNAP benefits to people who qualify for SNAP benefits. If one wants to expand the pool of people who qualify for SNAP benefits, that is a debate that we can have.

But time and time again, Mr. Speaker, there are things on which we agree in this Chamber. Programs should follow the rules that programs have. People who qualify should get benefits. People who don't qualify shouldn't.

We are going to continue to have this conversation in the next couple of days, and it is going to continue to be highlighted as a source of vast disagreement among us. But if we were having this same conversation back home around the dinner table, if we were having this same conversation back home at a local park or veterans organization, we would say the very same thing: Hungry kids should have access to food, on this we agree; and healthy, childless working age men should have access to a job, on this we agree.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with what my friend had to say. She may be a freshman, but she has got a lot of experience working in departments of labor putting people to work, and I think that is a goal that we all share.

And, again, it is a missed opportunity. Undeniably, that is true, and there is lots of blame to go around about why it is a missed opportunity. Again, my friend from Massachusetts and I, we are going to go back up to the Rules Committee this afternoon. We are going to make some more amendments in order. We are going to work harder to try to perfect this bill.

But walking away from the table has consequences. Setting lines in stone has consequences. We are not going to get the best work product in this Chamber when anybody walks away from the table. I am just going to stipulate that is true. We never ever will.

But while my friend identified that the program benefits the elderly, the disabled, and children, and she is right, and it does, and I support that, she didn't mention those able-bodied, healthy, childless men who also benefit from the program. And we do those men a disservice, not a service, when we make that benefit available in the absence of job searching.

Categorical eligibility--we talk about it today like it is a word that we are hearing for the very first time. As my colleagues who were here remember, we have already been to the table

on categorical eligibility. As my friend from Massachusetts referenced, States that have nothing to lose by giving away Federal money were gaming the system by giving away a dollar in State benefits so that folks could qualify for hundreds of dollars in Federal benefits.

Well, we came together in a bipartisan way and said: Hey, that is not right. That is not right. Folks should have skin in the game. We should be working at this together. It shouldn't be a giveaway program. It should be a helping program. We should be making a difference in people's lives.

We did that in a collaborative way. We can come back and tell the story differently today, but we remember coming together and doing that, and we can come together and do that again, Mr. Speaker. This isn't going to be our last opportunity. We are going to have another opportunity.

Nothing goes to the President's desk unless we get 10 Democrats in the United States Senate to get on board and do it. Collaboration is not the exception. It is the rule to get things to the President's desk and to pass new laws of the land.

I wish we could talk more about what those successes are, how we found those successes in the past, and how we remain committed to finding those successes again in the future.

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

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

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

I told you when we started this debate, Mr. Speaker, you were going to hear some passion from my friend from Massachusetts because he is, in fact, passionate. He is a public servant, and he serves his constituency well.

But I want to read to you from Politico, one of our Washington, D.C., newspapers, that follows what goes on here

in politics. I don't sit on the Agriculture Committee, as my friend from Massachusetts does, but Politico reported this, as talks around the farm bill broke down in March:

Bipartisan negotiations over the farm bill stopped--

There were bipartisan negotiations. Those negotiations stopped, Mr. Speaker.

Thursday afternoon, after House Agriculture Committee

ranking member Collin Peterson--

The ranking Democrat.

--faced pressure from fellow Democrats, who complained that

discussions about changes to the food stamp program were

being kept secret.

My friend from Massachusetts mentioned that. I have that same frustration on committees that I serve, Mr. Speaker. Very often, the chairman of the committee, who is a Republican, and the ranking member, who is a Democrat, and their subcommittee chairmen very often they get together and have negotiations before rank-and-file Members get involved. It happens, and I am frustrated about it, and my friend from Massachusetts is frustrated about it.

The development--

Politico goes on to say.

--is a considerable blow to the sweeping bill, which was seen

by many as one of the only real chances for bipartisanship in

this Congress. Congress is supposed to reauthorize the farm

bill every 5 years, but political wrangling has threatened

its fate. Current law expires September 30.

Peterson's decision--

Collin Peterson is the ranking Democrat.

--to pause talks comes after House Democrats demanded that he

stop negotiations until the text of the bill is made to

everyone.

The Democratic Members have made clear that they unanimously oppose the farm bill's SNAP language as it has been described to them or reported in the press.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if when you hear things you don't like, or see things you don't like, you leave the negotiating table, I promise you we are going to get a worse result every single time.

I go up to this Rules Committee, right up here on the third floor, and we debate and talk and debate and talk and debate and talk hour upon hour upon hour, late into the evening, often into the next morning. I hear things I don't like. I hear people say things I know are not true. But I don't pick up my toys and go home. I stay at the table, I debate the issues, and I work through the issues. If it was easy, someone would have done it before this Congress got here. All that is left is hard.

My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. He is absolutely right. He is absolutely right. If we are to reform the social safety net, we are going to have to expand benefits, not restrict them. He is absolutely right. But if we can't stay at the table to have that conversation, we are never going to bring people together to get that done.

You can't blame people who follow their self-interest. If the rule says you don't have to work, you don't have to work. If the rule says if you work too much, you will lose your benefits, then you don't work too much. That is crazy to encourage people to stay home.

You ought to be encouraging people to seek that next promotion, take on those extra hours, work that overtime. That has always been who we are and what we have done, and we have not taken on that challenge in welfare reform. I believe we can. I believe we can.

I need my colleagues to support this rule today. I need them to support the rule so we can bring up not just the farm bill, so that we can bring up the VA MISSION Act, a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will go to the President's desk and change the lives of veterans.

I need my colleagues to support this rule, not just so we can bring up the farm bill, not just so we can bring up the VA MISSION Act, but so that we can make the harming or threatening the harm of a law enforcement officer a Federal crime, to give the men and women who wear blue across this country the protections they deserve.

This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker, that is going to make a difference for our constituents back home. These are going to be issues that get folks exercise, Mr. Speaker. The most difficult issues we take on always do.

But if we pass this rule and take up this legislation, we will be one step closer, not just to succeeding for our veterans, not just to succeeding for our law enforcement officers, not just to succeeding on behalf of our farmers, but one step closer to taking on what is a collaborative challenge of how to return the incentives to work to the American people, while keeping the social safety net strong for all of the families that depend on it.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time that I have yielded back. I would be happy to yield a portion of it to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for granting my unanimous consent request to reclaim my time. I do believe that we advantage all of our causes, rather than disadvantage them, by promoting debate.

But I want to take issue, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mischaracterize anything. I read the media reporting. I will be the first--when you want to have the fake news conversation--there is too much fake news in this country--I will be happy to join you and have that debate with you. But I didn't mischaracterize a thing.

I agree with what my friend had to say about Collin Peterson from Minnesota. He is a fabulous Member, who works as hard as he can on behalf of his constituents to get work done. Nothing in the article I read said Collin Peterson walked away from the table. Everything in the article I read said he

was pressured by his Democratic colleagues to walk away from the table.

I will not yield again to my friend. I am going to close.

I take umbrage at the fact that we would have an opportunity to use each other's time, and you would use it to continue to say I mischaracterized, that we would have an opportunity to have a discussion, and you would continue to use it to say that folks just aren't as well informed as you are about those issues.

We have opportunities in this Chamber to make things better, and we have opportunities to make things worse. And I will say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, if we take advantage of our opportunities to make things better, I believe that we will. If we take advantage of our opportunities to make things worse, I am absolutely certain that we will.

I choose the latter. I choose the latter. A vote in support of this rule is a vote for the latter.

I am sorry, I am choosing the former. I am choosing the former. My colleagues out there are saying: Hey, I know Woodall; that is not right. He is not choosing to make things worse.

I choose the former, Mr. Speaker. I choose the former. A vote for this rule is a vote for the former.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair for my confusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

Next week is National Police Week, so several bills will focus on supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law enforcement. That includes H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act, sponsored by Representative John Rutherford. This bill would make inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police officer a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The House will also consider H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Conaway.

Ronald Reagan said, ``American farmers are the backbone of our country,'' and both myself and the data would agree.

Food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs, and U.S. farm exports generate more than $300 billion in economic activity.

This important bill will reauthorize farm and nutrition assistance programs for 5 years, while making reforms to modernize key programs and better support rural America.

Since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, I would like to make this a bonus colloquy for him, and preview several items that are possible during this work period.

This includes H.R. 5674, the VA MISSION Act of 2018, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe. This bill would fundamentally transform the VA and the way American veterans receive care for the better.

I want to applaud Chairman Roe for his hard work on this legislation, which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2.

Next, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. At $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single rescissions request in history.

More importantly, this bill allows Congress to give our Federal budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking taxpayers.

Third, H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Mac Thornberry. This bill supports the historic investments we have made to rebuild America's

military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they need to keep us safe.

Finally, the House may take further action on Dodd-Frank reform, including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

I look forward to both Chambers taking additional policy actions in this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to capital for American families and businesses.

As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has asked before and as we have worked time and time again, the committee is working on a budget, and as they get through, we will bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Even though I gave him a bonus colloquy beyond the week in front of us, that does not mean if I don't mention something, that that item would not come forward. So as the Budget Committee works, I will keep the gentleman apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us to bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those many questions.

I have got good news for the gentleman. If his concern is the contingency fund for the Children's Health Insurance Program, no need to fear. In the life of the entire program, the most that has ever been used, accumulated completely, is $300 million; that is why we set aside $500 million.

Go beyond the long history of it. CBO tells us they don't expect any of it to be used, but we want an insurance, just as we wanted this program to survive; that is why it got extended more than 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. But we care about the Children's Health Insurance Program; we care about the taxpayers.

The good news is, in this rescission program, none of that money can be spent. And if you are concerned about it and worried about maybe you would make that vote, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other side, she voted to take that same amount from CHIP in the omnibus to spend somewhere else, because you can't use the money, and we have already extended it 10 years, and no child is going to be harmed by this. CBO says it, all the way through, and we keep the contingency fund there.

But you won't rescind the money that you now have the authority to even spend on the program to give back to the taxpayers? That is what is interesting to me because I listened to you closely, and we have had this discussion before about rescissions. It was just in our last colloquy.

I remember when we talked about rescissions because that used to be common practice. President Bill Clinton did it 111 times. President Ronald Reagan did it 214 times. And both Presidents, Mr. Speaker, had Congresses that were from other parties some time during their administration.

So when you and I talked about it, because you had voted for rescissions before, I wanted to make sure I got your input before ever talking to the administration because I would like to have your help on this. I think the American taxpayers would like to have everybody's help on this.

So I asked you in that colloquy, I was hoping that you would support this bill from our last one because you said, in our last colloquy: ``I wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we've had money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, or 3 years. We shouldn't just have it sitting in that account.''

Because in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, the concern on the other side from my friend was we were going to break a trust; that we were going to take money from that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated in, but, unfortunately, that trust he couldn't vote for.

You even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those funds was a reasonable thing to do. I agree that it is a reasonable thing to do.

So this administration, I think, may have listened to our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at this rescission package, the largest one ever done, common practice from President Ford up until Bill Clinton, you asked for funding that has sat for the last 1, 2, or 3 years. But even in this one, we identified programs that have sat there for 7 years.

There has not been a loan in a program since 2011, and there is more than $4 billion sitting there. Taking you at your word, you would jump at this. I should have asked you to cosponsor it.

Now, I hope all Members will put the politics aside and be able to support this because this is really what the taxpayer is looking for. This is really what this House has a history of doing.

I know you have brought up a few other issues in there, and I know, when you talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CBO has said that ``rescinding the unobligated balances would . . . not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.''

There are so many times I hear CBO quoted here, so I hope we would quote it here as well. In other words, this will have no effect on the CHIP program.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, in the omnibus, those who voted for it, and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing with a higher number. So it was unobligated then and okay to do it. I am just not sure why it wouldn't be now if you send it back to the taxpayers.

Now, I do want to, also, Mr. Speaker, know because we have worked on this CHIP program for quite some time. Now, the Republicans passed the longest and most generous CHIP extension in the program's history.

Now, for the record, my friend did vote against it, not once, not twice, but three times in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote an AP article from Andy Taylor, because you just can't make this stuff up.

``Just weeks ago, Democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, eager to grab easy budget savings to finance new spending at the Department of Health and Human Services. But some Democrats howled over the Trump proposal anyway.''

Let me get this straight. Is it okay to rescind the CHIP program, Mr. Speaker, when Nancy Pelosi wants to spend more? But when President Trump wants to save the taxpayers money, with no effect on the CHIP program at all, is that what Armageddon is?

Now, I don't want to play politics, and I know you have mentioned a lot, and you did mention the tax bill, and you did mention April. There was more good news in America. It wasn't just that unemployment is at 3.9 percent. You know the last time--the whole time I have been elected in Congress----

Yes, 18 years ago. Do you know that the claims for unemployment are at the lowest point it has been in more than four decades? That is more than 40 years.

Do you know, just in the last year, 2 million more people have jobs? Did you realize the millions of people who actually got bonuses; or just in one company, 1.2 million Americans have a longer maternity leave?

And did you see the revenue into America's Government last month? It was the largest surplus in the history. The most revenue coming in.

So all of those colloquies we had of the fear of this tax bill, the one that allowed Americans to keep more of what they earned, the one that we promised would create more jobs, the one that would bring more prosperity, facts don't lie. America is in a very good place, and I am thankful that we had that debate.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, the others on the other side, there wasn't one of them who could agree with us. But I think today they can agree with the numbers of what it says and what it means; that we know for any American who has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go away to college, they don't have the fear that they are going to have to come back and live with their

parents. They are going to enter one of the strongest economies to find a job, of course, in their lifetime, but maybe almost in one of the best times we have seen in ours.

So, yes, I am excited about this. I am also excited about the idea of bringing a tradition back that saves the taxpayers money, one that, Mr. Speaker, my friend has voted for before, one that protects the CHIP program by setting aside, on a contingency basis, more than what has ever been asked for in the history of it, $500 million when only $300 million it has, and even though they say not one dollar would be spared. So we have the reserve there for it.

I am excited that the administration listened to our colloquy, took my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any accounts that sat there 1, 2, and even 7 years that was unobligated, to be able to save the taxpayer money. And I look forward to when that is on the floor so that we can vote on it together and show the American public that we are serious about saving taxpayers money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman realize that there are 2 million more people in the workforce in less than a year?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that more than 5 million people got a bonus that, Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side thought was crumbs?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that the 3.9 percent unemployment rate, many Americans have not seen that in almost two decades?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that we just watched last night our President at Andrews Air Force Base bring back three Americans that were held in prison in North Korea, and for the first time since that conflict has gone on there is an opportunity to end that war?

So, yes, I think some of our best days are right now; but with the potential of what we have not only with our tax bill, but, if we get our farm bill moving where we help individuals to get into that workforce, because that unemployment is so low, I do believe the best days are in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I remember what the gentleman said. The gentleman is very concerned about the trust that we would have because of the months that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust, even though those who negotiated, still some did not vote for it. But in that omnibus, because defense had been cut more than 20 percent, because when I wake up this morning and I see rockets flying from Syria into Israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it is not 20 percent safer. We made an investment into military.

The gentleman does not want any cuts to go into that process, but my question to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is there any cut in the rescission the gentleman supports, because I took him at his word.

I said to the administration: I just had a great conversation in a colloquy that the gentleman on the other side said of course he would look at anything that was 1, 2, 3, or further years that was unobligated.

That is the only thing that is in the rescission. The easiest way not to save taxpayers money is to find something that is not in the bill that you just really need.

The gentleman laid out in a colloquy what he wanted in a rescission. It did not deal with the omnibus because the gentleman is worried about the trust. The gentleman said he would look at anything from 1, 2, 3, or further. That is the only thing in here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend: Is there anything in the rescission bill that he could support by giving the taxpayers more money back?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any idea, because I know he has served on the Appropriations Committee, please offer up, like any Member can, what he would cut or what he wants to find as savings. I will look in any department anywhere to find a savings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman show me where in the CHIP program--because, one, you cannot use these funds; two, the contingency base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it--show me where the Children's Health Insurance Program, because no one is saying it. No one can show that it is. Please point it out to us.

You do not have the authority to spend this money. We put a contingency fund, set aside, and looked at the history of the program. The most that was ever used was $300 million, so we keep $500 million in reserve.

If the gentleman could explain to me why, then, for those who voted for the omnibus on your side of the aisle, would you make a larger, same amount, and the argument then to take that money in the omnibus but not now, why is it different?

Why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an account you cannot spend, you don't have the legal authority to, and it is just sitting there, and it goes to the criteria of what you laid out, 1, 2, 3, or 4?

The great thing about a rescission, this doesn't have to be the only one. So if you want to work with us and you find areas that you want to find savings to the taxpayers, I will make myself available to have those meetings.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, because if you listened to what I said earlier, it went to HHS.

But this is the point: Then the gentleman is acknowledging that you could not use that money for the CHIP program, so it is still sitting there. You do not have the authority for it. It is exactly what you said to me in a colloquy, just our last, that you will look at any account that is sitting there 1, 2, 3, all the way to 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument, if no child could be harmed, if the Republicans put it for 10 years, the longest it has ever been, you can't use the money, and we leave a contingency fund there.

If the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to ``no,'' I understand that. But I am of the belief I want to find a way to save money, and I don't know what points the gentleman tries to bring up and say it is political. No.

The whole time I have been in this House, I have always held to the belief: It doesn't matter; we can find in any program waste. But this rescission program is about money that is sitting in accounts that you laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at, and that is what we have done, and I hope you would be able to keep your word and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Did the gentleman yield to me? On what point?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will answer any question he has or any other reason why he finds a way you can't save taxpayers money, but let me answer your questions.

Since we don't touch FY18 funds, it does not affect FY19 baseline.

Secondly, I said earlier, the gentleman is a Member of this Congress. Rescissions do not have to be a one-time offer. If you have any ability or any ideas, I am more than willing to work with you. I am more than willing to work in the future not just on that line, but others as well.

That is great. Will the gentleman offer an amendment to the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used Congressman Tom Cole's name, saying that he would say something. Congressman Tom Cole is a cosponsor of the rescission bill.

He is an appropriator, just as Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman Tom Graves. They are all on the Appropriations Committee, and they are all cosponsors of this bill because they want to continue to look to ways that you can save taxpayers money.

I know we have gone around and around here. The question really ends to a philosophy. Can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers money, or can we only find the time that we will take that money when you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? I believe we could take money that you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer.

The gentleman brings up other areas. My door is open. I don't want this to be the only rescission. I look for any department, any area in government that we could find savings that are left over, that are sitting there. Or let's make it more accountable. Let's find savings in the current process as well. I am all for that.

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to is voting ``no.'' That is the easiest thing to do on this floor. I can always find a reason why I am against a bill because something else was not in it.

What is in this bill today is what my friend said in the last colloquy. His argument against having a rescission package was all based upon the omnibus. So he laid this out. Then we meet that criteria, and then he is going to lay another reason out.

You cannot point to anywhere, CBO or any other place, where it states that the CHIP program is harmed. I am sure he was concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, when he voted against it three times, when he extended for 10 years.

This isn't about CHIP. It has nothing to do with it, because the CBO says it is all protected. We put a contingency

fund in there greater than what was ever used in the history of the program.

Mr. Speaker, what the real story here is: Can you take money and give it back to the taxpayers and save money, or do you always have to spend more in Washington? I think when the bill comes to the floor, the American people will get that answer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman just said nickel-and-dime programs. This will be the largest rescission in the history of this country. It is not nickels and dimes. It is the taxpayers' money. If it is nickels and dimes to the taxpayers, I want to save those, just the same. But this is billions.

The gentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues that CHIP could be in jeopardy. The CBO says that is not true. The press writes that it is not true. I cannot find anywhere that this program would be harmed.

I listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted against CHIP three times. His explanation is because he said there was a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. I can take him at his word, but my only question back to him would be: Then why does he vote for any bill? Shouldn't he vote ``no'' on every bill that is on the floor then, if that is the protest?

I don't understand why he would take it out on the Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't understand why, when we had the opportunity and we were able to achieve it, he voted ``no'' to get the longest extension in a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will see through what is politics and what is policy and what is opportunity. Yes, we did pass a tax bill and, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it.

Yes, our unemployment is the lowest it has been in more than 18 years. Our unemployment claims are the lowest they have been in 44 years. Two million more people are now in the workforce.

If you go back, 9, 10 years, the participation rate in America was over 65 percent. Unfortunately, just a few years ago, it got all the way down to 62.7, the lowest it has been since 1978. But the good news is, it is on its way back up.

The good news is, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans got bonuses where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. The better news is, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues into government are even higher--part of what the argument was on passing the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was even an excitement to watch President Trump sitting at Andrews Air Force Base watching three Americans get off an airplane that have been in prison in North Korea, released on the hopes that the war and the battle of North Korea against South Korea can end, and that the President has announced that he has a location and time for that meeting.

Yes, the world looks brighter. But there are still places around the world that are not safe. And, yes, we did make an investment into the military that I am very proud of. I actually voted for that bill. People will say a lot of people negotiated. Some that negotiated didn't vote for it in the end.

So, Mr. Speaker, I try to listen to the other side and I take what they say very seriously. When I heard in our last colloquy that a rescission bill had to be made on those funds that have sat there for 1, 2, 3, and even 7 years, that is what we did. And I look forward to working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body would like to work on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and for the bonus of a little longer-term view of what we might be considering on the floor of the House.

One of the things I didn't hear on that, and perhaps I asked the majority leader about this before, is whether the majority is expecting to offer on the floor or consider a budget resolution this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, although it was not on this list, I wonder if we might expect a budget resolution to be offered at some point in time in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, April 15 is the day set forth. Many times we did not meet April 15. Clearly, last year we didn't meet April 15 by many, many months, but I appreciate the gentleman's answers.

Let me say that I will be joining Sunday night at the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C., the ceremony to honor those who have given their life in service to our country as law enforcement officers. We ought to pause not just next week, but every week, to recognize the extraordinary service given to us by what I call our domestic defenders, both our police and firefighter personnel, and emergency medical response teams.

It is appropriate that we say thank you. They obviously have a very, very tough job. They get a lot of flack from time to time, but without them, we could not maintain the system of order that we have in this country that allows democracy to proceed. So I want all of us to join, not just next week, but next week particularly, to recognize. We will have, of course, a ceremony on the west front of the Capitol.

We just had a ceremony the other day, which the Capitol Police conducted, remembering the loss of life that we experienced here in this Capitol to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in defending the Capitol and those who reside therein and who visit this Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, on the farm bill and on rescissions, the farm bill, as I understand it, again, I think pursuant to what the Speaker said after we passed the tax bill in which we gave 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest in America, the farm bill is now trying to fill that $1.8 trillion hole that was constructed by the tax bill by reducing benefits to those most in need in this country.

I would not so much ask a question of the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, but simply to observe that I would hope we would not try to fill that very, very deep hole that we have dug by passing that tax bill by taking it from those who are most in need.

I notice that, as well as the farm bill, the rescission bill was referred to by the leader as coming to the floor as well, and that seeks to cut a very substantial amount from the contingency fund for child health insurance.

The majority leader will make the point, well, that is money that is not necessarily expected to be spent. In fact, he wrote to CBO asking them a question. The CBO said they didn't think any children would be dropped off because if the contingency is not realized, no children will be dropped off. If, however, the contingency is, and there are no contingency funds available to do that, then, in fact, children will be at risk, unless we pass additional legislation.

I think it is unfortunate the majority is pursuing a policy now, both on the farm bill and on the rescission bill, that seeks to undermine the safety and security of those who are nutritionally underserved in this country.

It is amazing, in the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have people--one out of five children is going, Mr. Speaker, to bed at night hungry. We ought to be moving in the other direction.

This bill has, historically, been a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Lucas and Mr. Peterson, in the last reauthorization, brought a bipartisan bill to the floor. Very frankly, it was turned into a partisan bill on the floor, Mr. Speaker, when an amendment was offered and voted on by much of the leadership on the majority side, which would have cut $40 billion from food stamps for those who are hungry Americans among us.

This is less than that, but I understand that the Heritage Action, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity are opposed to the bill because it is not a deep enough cut, either in farm programs or in nutritional programs.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we hope that these will not be policies that we will pursue as a House of Representatives, or as a Congress, and, very frankly, we think the farm bill has little chance of passing the Senate. I would say zero, but that perhaps is a little bit too strong, but certainly little--so that we will be spinning our wheels to send an ideological message to constituencies, I suppose, that want to undercut the ability to ensure that people have food that are hungry in our country.

As to the rescission bill that the majority leader mentioned, Mr. Speaker, rescissions are pretty common. Rescissions are common and mostly done by the Congress of the United States, and we do it annually. In almost every appropriation bill that we pass, or omnibus that we pass, not so much CRs, but they have been present in CRs as well, that we have rescissions.

The Congress has also gotten, as the majority leader will point out, rescission requests from the executive department. Largely, those have been not agreed to by the Congress. Only in one instance has one President had even a majority of his requests acceded to, and that was President Clinton.

But the fact of the matter is, for the most part, rescissions have been pursued by the Congress of the United States, appropriately so, doing its job. And, of course, President Bush asked for no rescissions. President Reagan asked for a lot of rescissions, but President Bush asked for no rescissions--I refer to the second President Bush--nor did President Obama, notwithstanding when the Republicans were largely in charge of the Congress of the United States. And we exercised our judgment and did, in fact, do rescissions in the appropriations process.

Now, we have not had a budget. It is the middle of May. It is a month after the budget was to come forward. Our side does not see a budget moving, but perhaps the majority leader is correct, the committee is considering that, and that would be another place where the Congress could take initiatives and a decision to rescind various amounts of spending.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I said if there was spending that was neither necessary nor had been authorized over long periods of time, then I would have no objection, personally, to that rescission, and would think that we could initiate that action. But I would hope that, in both of these instances, we would not take actions which would adversely affect those who are challenged in America, either because of health reasons or nutritional reasons.

I would secondly say, and lastly--the majority leader, I am sure, wants to make some comments--60 percent of the budget that we passed, which our Republican friends apparently think

was too much, was defense. Not a single red cent is included in the President's rescission from the defense side of the budget, only the nondefense discretionary funding, the people part of the budget.

Now, I am a strong supporter of national security, Mr. Speaker, and I have been for the 37 years that I have been in this House. But I do not delude myself that every bit of money that has been appropriated-- trillions of dollars over the last 4, 5, or 6 years--has either been spent or is not subject to, perhaps, the Congress saying, well, we put that money on the table but it hasn't been spent.

But apparently the President can't find a single red cent for that, but he can find places where we can undermine research for innovation, Children's Health Insurance Program.

I understand the leader is going to say that CBO says not a single child will be dropped. That may be true; but if we drop the contingency fund, which has been available and has been used year after year, either directly for health insurance or for related programs for children, then we will be at risk of hurting people whom I don't think anybody in this body wants to hurt. So I would hope that, before those bills are brought to the floor, we would keep those matters in consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

2000, as I recall, when Mr. Clinton was President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He mentioned a number of facts.

Economically, I think all of us can be happy that unemployment is down. The gentleman then mentioned that there are less unemployment requests being made.

Is the gentleman aware that, in 2016, we created 400,000 more jobs than we created in 2017? Is the gentleman aware of that fact? That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I presume the answer is the gentleman did not know that there were 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than were created in 2017. I didn't get the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask, however, if the gentleman is convinced that there is not a single nickel that can be rescinded from the Defense Department budgets over the last 10 years, trillions of dollars of money, and that only the nondefense side of the budget is subject to rescissions, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman of the opinion that there are no sums available from the defense budget to try to fill the $1.8 trillion hole created by the tax bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the majority leader, the Congress has rescinded billions of dollars through the years, and I have voted for rescissions that have been sent down by Presidents of the United States and there may well be rescissions that are sent down that I could support.

I do not intend to support rescissions, Mr. Speaker, that I view as undermining children's health. I know what the majority leader says: nobody is going to be hurt.

Now, interestingly enough, in that answer, he does not answer my question except we all want a strong defense. Nobody on this floor has longer supported Israel's right to be safe and defended than I have.

The issue is I asked the majority leader this does not include a single red cent of rescissions from the trillions of dollars to the Defense Department, not because I want to undermine the Defense Department any more than he says he wants to undermine children's health, but this is not about rescissions, per se. What it is about is the flack that the majority party is getting, that the President is getting from the Club for Growth, from Heritage Action, from Americans for Prosperity, saying: Your budget was too big. The omnibus was too big. We don't like it. Show some fiscal discipline.

So in an effort to show fiscal discipline, who do they go after? The Children's Health Insurance Program.

He can say it all he wants, but he well knows, and the appropriators will tell him, Mr. Speaker, that that money has been used on an ongoing basis by the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and by the Appropriations Committee to backfill in places where there were clearly shortages on services to children and families.

The gentleman may want to say whether or not he believes--because outlays are not affected, he says--that, in fact, this rescission will lower the nondefense discretionary baseline in 2019. That is what I think the real purpose is, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the majority leader has not answered the question about whether there is a single cent to save the taxpayer money--we all want to save the taxpayer money--out of the Defense Department side of the budget or whether that is simply sacrosanct and not worthy of oversight by the Congress or by the President.

That was my question. It was not answered, and I regret that.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, is the majority leader aware of the fact, when he says that the rescission was cut or the CHIP was cut, is the gentleman aware of where that money went when it was cut, or--I would say it in a different way--reprogrammed to other items in the omnibus or in the Labor-Health bill in previous appropriations? Is the gentleman aware of the difference between the cut and the reprogramming of money for a different objective related to the appropriation that was included?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not answered either one of my questions, A, whether there was a single red cent available in the Defense Department for rescission, because that money has been laying there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. Is there a single red cent there? B, he did not answer the question whether or not this rescission will adversely impact the discretionary baseline for the 2019 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I did yield to the gentleman about the single red cent, because all of this deals on the nondefense side of the budget, which is, by the way, the smallest part of the budget.

The gentleman keeps saying we need to make sure we do these cuts. He wasn't as concerned, apparently, about balancing our budget when he cut $1.8 trillion, $1.5 trillion--$1.8 trillion when you include the interest. I know they say it is going to pay for itself. I have been here a long time. They have said that before. It never has paid for itself.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not answer those two questions: Is there not a single red cent in the Defense budget; are they looking at the Defense budget to see whether or not we put money on the table that is either no longer necessary or has not been used for a significant period of time--that seems to be his rationale--or, secondly, whether or not it is going to have an adverse effect on the budget deal that was reached in terms of where the nondefense discretionary spending base will be for the 2019 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of unobligated funds in the Department of Defense?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader--he wants to do these rescissions. Congress usually does these. They do them in the appropriations process, and that is fine. Presidents have also done that.

My question to him was: If you want to see rescissions, and--as he has quoted me over, and over, and over again--funds that are not necessary, not needed, not going to be spent, obviously, we will consider rescissions for those.

However, what I have asked the gentleman is, you make the assessment. Very frankly, the first time we make a rescission suggestion on defense, he will stand up, or others on his side will stand up, and say: See, they are against defense.

I am strongly for our national security, and I always have been. But I think it is perverse in the farm bill to look at people who need nutritional help. This CHIP program, if there is $500 million as he claims, and he is probably accurate--I don't want to assess the gentleman's saying something inaccurate--but clearly, these funds have been used for other issues almost annually by the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Cole would say that. Mrs. Lowey would say that.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, for both the President and the majority to propose where those $95 billion in unobligated funds might also add to his desire to make sure that taxpayers get some money back that is not being used.

I yield to my friend and then we will conclude.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned numerous times that I voted against some of the bills that were offered on this floor, and he is right. He tries to make it as if I voted against the CHIP program. He knows that is not an honest representation, Mr. Speaker, any more than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voting against one of those bills with me being against defense.

I was against it, frankly, because the Speaker and the majority leader made a representation in September that we are going to solve a problem we have yet to solve. And I am sorry about that. I think it is wrong not to have solved it, and we were told we were going to have a solution to it.

But the fact of the matter is, what I am saying is, the Republicans talked and talked mightily about deficit reduction and giving money back to the taxpayer. But if you break their bank, the money is going to be taken from our children.

And so they passed a massive, $1.5 trillion tax bill, massive, and then they come here with nickel-and-dime programs and say they are going to give money back to the taxpayer.

I am for giving money back to the taxpayer. I am not for doing it by creating additional debt for their children and their grandchildren. I think that is not only an intellectually bankrupt policy, but an immoral policy. But we are not going to resolve it today. I understand that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this administration will have the largest deficit increase of any administration in history. They haven't been here very long, so that is a prediction I make, and I am absolutely positive I am correct.

They are now trying to bring that down, as I have said, by going after investments on the domestic side of the budget, both in the farm bill and in the rescission package. There are clearly rescissions that are justified and that the Appropriations Committee and administrations have made on a regular basis. When administrations have made them, almost invariably, the majority of the rescissions requested by the administrations--Democrat or Republican--have been rejected by the Congress of the United States.

But I am hopeful, as the majority leader says, that we can reach bipartisan agreement on rescissions that, in fact, make sense. I would also hope we could reach some bipartisan agreement on solving issues that confront this country.

The farm bill is a perfect example where it historically has been a bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a partisan bill this year, as they made it the last time when Chairman Lucas reported out a bipartisan bill and pleaded with his party not to make it a partisan bill. They made it a partisan bill and, of course, it failed in the Senate. It wasn't even brought up in the Senate. The Senate did its own bill.

So I would hope that the words of the majority leader about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion will be realized with respect to all of these issues, including rescissions. And I would hope that we could perhaps have some rational policies to try to stem the extraordinary deficits that will inevitably be caused, as they have been in the past, by a tax cut bill that gave 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest in our Nation.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Protect and Serve Act, while rooted in laudable goals, will not strengthen protections for law enforcement officers, and it fails to make meaningful reforms that would improve police- community relations. Although I will not oppose the bill, I believe that its consideration today reflects a wasted opportunity.

This legislation would create a new offense under title 18 of the U.S. Code for the crime of targeting law enforcement officers. Current law, however, at both the Federal and State level already makes it a crime. It is not clear why this bill changes the law in any meaningful way.

No Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, and stress associated with being a police officer. A white paper commissioned by the Ruderman Family Foundation reported that, last year, 129 peace officers died in the line of duty--46 from shootings--with an additional 140 reported officer suicides. Since the start of this year, 2018, at least 36 law enforcement officers across the United States have died while on duty, with 24 of the deaths caused by gunfire.

Our hearts go out to the families of those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

As a result of the risk inherent to policing, there is no profession more widely protected under Federal and State law than working in law enforcement. All 50 States have laws that enhance penalties for crimes against peace officers and, in some instances, crimes against the broadly defined category of first responders.

In fact, section 2 of the bill clearly acknowledges that States have primary jurisdictions for attacks on State and local police officers and lays out very narrow circumstances where a Federal nexus would exist. This presents an open question as to whether there would be any instances at all in which the Department of Justice would exercise jurisdiction under this legislation.

I would note that my own State of New York has four separate criminal statutes addressing attacks on law enforcement officers. Moreover, Federal laws already impose a life sentence and, in some circumstances, even the death penalty on persons convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers or other employees assisting with Federal investigations.

Simply put, the legislation under consideration today does not improve upon this existing legal framework and does not provide any more stringent punishment for anyone under existing law.

I want to be clear about the respect that we have for the difficult work undertaken by our law enforcement professionals. While attacks on law enforcement officials are completely unacceptable, the existing framework for prosecuting these crimes is more than adequate at both the Federal and State level. If it were not, I would be an ardent supporter of this legislation.

Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture during Police Week, the Congress should instead be focusing on real reform measures that would actually protect law enforcement officers and first responders.

We should act on the related problem of well-documented unconstitutional policing practices in communities of color across the United States that have eroded trust between those communities and the law enforcement officials sworn to protect them.

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department currently has 19 consent agreements with troubled police departments nationwide. Dating back to the mid-1990s, every region of the country has suffered some kind of high-profile incident.

Adding to community concerns are the increasingly well-documented incidents of unjustified deadly force against unarmed victims in police-civilian encounters. More than 50 percent of the unarmed victims in these fatal encounters with police were people of color.

The goal of protecting police officer safety would be well served by working to foster law enforcement reforms aimed at helping local jurisdictions meet their constitutional obligation of fair and unbiased policing and the resulting better trust between the communities and the police in their midst.

As we have debated the Protect and Serve Act, I have been encouraged by the expressed commitment by Chairman Goodlatte and the bill's sponsor, Representative Rutherford, to work with me on bringing the Judiciary Committee's balanced work on law enforcement accountability out into the open with hearings and the introduction of legislation. We should care equally about harms by and against police officers and their impact on local communities.

We should care about the harms on local communities because of that harm and also because of the fact that it undoubtedly leads to distrust, which in turn leads to greater violence against police officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset of debate today, I will not oppose this bill, although it merely duplicates existing law. It does not add any protection for the police and does not increase any penalty for someone who assaults a police officer. I am not interested in falling into the trap of opposing what amounts to a messaging bill brought forth during Police Week.

But I want to be clear that I believe H.R. 5698 represents a wasted opportunity and appears tone-deaf to some of the real struggles happening in communities across our Nation. This bill is being contemplated at a time when our country is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African Americans captured on video.

Creating a new, yet superfluous crime for offenses committed against law enforcement is not a great idea because it doesn't do anything. It is particularly not a great idea when we are ignoring the other problem that adds to the danger for police officers, which is the disconnectedness and estrangement of many police forces from the communities they serve.

I hope this Congress will now get back to the difficult work of legislating meaningful solutions. I am encouraged that my Republican colleagues have made a commitment to pursue balanced law enforcement accountability reform with hearings and, hopefully, the introduction of legislation. There is much work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from various civil rights and civil liberties groups relative to this bill.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.

Re Coalition Opposition to H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve

Act of 2018.

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 28 undersigned

civil rights, civil liberties, faith-based, and government

accountability organizations, we write to urge you to oppose

H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, which creates a

new crime for offenses that target law enforcement officers.

First, police already have substantial protections under

federal and state law, rendering this bill superfluous.

Second, this bill signals that there is a ``war on police,''

which is not only untrue, but an unhelpful and dangerous

narrative to uplift. And finally, bills similar to Protect

and Serve that have been introduced in states around the

country--so called ``Blue Lives Matter'' bills--appear to be

a political response to the growing national movement for

police accountability in the face of continued killings and

assaults of unarmed African Americans; therefore, this bill

is divisive and will have a negative impact on the

relationship between law enforcement and the communities they

serve.

i. Federal and state criminal laws already offer ample

protection to police officers.

Federal law already has extremely strong penalties for

people who commit crimes against law enforcement officers and

other public officials. For example, federal laws impose a

life sentence or death penalty on persons convicted of first-

degree murder of federal employees or officers, killing state

and local law enforcement officers or other employees

assisting with federal investigations and killing officers of

the U.S. courts. All fifty states have laws that enhance

penalties for people who commit offenses against law

enforcement officers, including for homicide and assault.

Moreover, there is no record that crimes against law

enforcement go unprosecuted or are otherwise treated

frivolously There is no record to suggest that prosecutors

are unwilling or unable to charge individuals with crimes

against law enforcement. In fact, crimes against police

officers are treated as among the most heinous criminal acts,

given the high degree of culpability and punishment attached

to such crimes.

II. The Protect and Serve Act does not advance any stated

policy goals, because law enforcement is not subject to

increasing or widespread attacks.

There is no doubt that police work is a dangerous

undertaking, but the reality is that there has been a

continuing decline in the number of officers killed or

assaulted in the line of duty over the last several decades.

In the past ten years, the number of officers feloniously

killed has fluctuated, yet not significantly increased or

decreased, as have ambush-style killings of officers. Given

these facts, this bill perpetuates a false narrative that

police are under increasing attack by their communities. Such

a message is unhelpful and unsupported.

Furthermore, the Protect and Serve Act does nothing to

meaningfully improve officer safety and wellness if that is

an intended policy goal. For example, it does not call for

support services, better training, improved safety measures,

increased supervision, or any of the other multiple measures

available to law enforcement that are widely accepted as

promoting officer safety and wellbeing.

III. Protect and Serve Act is polarizing and harms

community-police relations.

This bill is being contemplated at a time when our country

is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-

ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African

Americans captured on video. Creating a new, yet superfluous,

crime for offenses committed against law enforcement is a

particularly disconnected and non-responsive policy choice.

Unfortunately, the Protect and Serve Act is similar to other

``Blue Lives Matter'' type bills that create new criminal

offenses and penalty enhancements for crimes against police.

Collectively, these policy efforts, which have sprung up

amid the national call for police accountability, appear to

be a political response to the powerful activism of

grassroots movements that demand fair and constitutional

policing. Rather than focusing on policies that address

issues of police excessive force, biased policing, and other

police

practices that have failed these communities, the Protect and

Serve Act's aim is to further criminalize. This bill will be

received as yet another attack on these communities and

threatens to exacerbate what is already a discriminatory

system of mass incarceration in this country. Continuing to

undermine police-community relations in this manner sows

seeds of division, which ultimately threatens public safety

and undermines the work of law enforcement.

For the reasons summarized above, we urge you to vote

against the Protect and Serve Act as it comes before the U.S.

House of Representatives. There is no justification for

creating a new crime for offenses committed against law

enforcement. At a time when we need to foster healing between

law enforcement and our communities, we should not be

considering legislation which not only does nothing to

advance the goal of officer safety, but will further erode

the relationship between police and communities.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you

have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett of the ACLU;

Sakira Cook of The Leadership Conference or Sonia Gill

Hernandez of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

Inc.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union; Anti-Defamation League;

Campaign for Youth Justice; Church of Scientology National

Affairs Office; CLASP; The Daniel Initiative; Defending

Rights & Dissent; Friends Committee on National Legislation;

Human Rights Watch; Government Information Watch; Law

Enforcement Action Partnership; The Leadership Conference on

Civil and Human Rights; Muslim Advocates; NAACP.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National

Action Network; National Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers; National Bar

Association; National Center for Transgender Equality; Nation

Council of Jewish Women; The National Council for

Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls;

National Council of Churches; People for the American Way;

PolicyLink; South Asian Americans Leading Together; Southern

Poverty Law Center; StoptheDrugWar.org.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.