Making further additional continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting a longer statement for the Record, so I will be keeping my floor remarks today fairly brief.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this farm bill. This farm bill is not perfect. It is not the bill that I would have written. But this conference report, unlike the farm bill that the House produced, is a good, bipartisan product.

I want to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their tireless efforts to protect SNAP benefits throughout this process. Because of their work, hungry people across this country will have access to the modest benefits they need to feed their families. I thank as well Chairman Conaway, who recognized the importance of getting a farm bill over the finish line this year.

I especially want to recognize the efforts of Ranking Member Peterson. He is truly an amazing guy who presides over a committee that is very diverse with rural, suburban, and urban Members of Congress. It has conservatives, moderates, and liberals like me. Yet, he has managed to bring us together and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Farmers, consumers, and hungry people all across the country owe him a debt of gratitude.

I also want to thank the staff of the minority and the majority who put in endless hours trying to negotiate a compromise. I want to thank Kaitlin Hodgkins, who was my point person on these ag issues, for all of her work.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of hunger and food insecurity has been my primary cause in Congress. I have been proud to work on these issues as a member of the Agriculture Committee and to oversee the SNAP program as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Nutrition.

As members of this House well know, I have been very critical of the legislation that the Republican majority in this House initially produced. It included more than $20 billion in SNAP cuts that would have disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable among us--kids, disabled, and the elderly--the very people who are often left to wonder where they will get their next meal. Many would have been cut off from assistance altogether if the House version actually prevailed.

The Senate, however, took a much different course. Their Agriculture Committee chairman, Senator Roberts, actually consulted with Ranking Member Stabenow. There were no disastrous work requirements, no partisan policies cooked up in some extreme conservative think tank somewhere. It largely continued proven policies that both sides have traditionally agreed on.

Thankfully, the conference committee took the same course. This final bill does not include any SNAP benefits cuts. No one is getting kicked off the rolls, there are no changes to categorical eligibility or severing of the link between SNAP and LIHEAP. And importantly, there are no additional burdensome work requirements.

In fact, this conference report makes a number of administrative improvement and efficiencies, saving $1 billion. These are reinvested into nutrition programs. As a result, more Americans will have access to healthy food and SNAP employment and training programs will be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Secretary of Agriculture and the President are tuning in to this debate. Right now, we have heard rumors that they are trying to work behind the scenes to circumvent the will of this Congress by

instituting more onerous work requirements administratively. Such a move, I believe, will likely lead to legal action.

In the next Congress, when Democrats are in the majority, we will use every legislative tool available to block such a move at every turn. We will not tolerate more of their disrespect and callousness toward the most vulnerable in this country. No more beating up on poor people, period. We will be watching them very closely, and if they do anything--and I mean anything--to increase hunger in America, we will fight them. And that is a promise.

When a Congress as polarized as the 115th can negotiate and arrive at a bipartisan agreement, we should be celebrating it. It is mind- boggling to think there are some on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue working to overturn it even before it is signed into law.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be able to vote for this rule today, since I said I was going to support the underlying legislation. But my Republican friends screwed it up again. Tucked inside this rule is language that turns off fast track procedures for all Yemen resolutions through the end of this Congress. That is right. The Republican leadership has declared that the worst humanitarian conflict in the world, where the U.N. has just announced famine is taking place due to the war, is not worth the time and attention of the people's House. This is an offensive abdication of our responsibility. We should not be sitting idly by, waiting for the start of the next Congress, as this conflict rages on. We should be doing something today.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of this Yemen language that I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, this Farm Bill isn't perfect. It's not the bill that I would have written. But very rarely do we get the chance to vote on professionalism in this body. And this conference report is the product of a professional process that was made better by deliberative, bipartisan debate.

The issue of food insecurity has been my primary cause. As members of the House know well, I have been very critical of the Farm Bill that House Republicans initially produced. It included more than $20 billion in SNAP cuts that would have disproportionately harmed the most vulnerable among us. Kids. The disabled. And the elderly. The very people who are often left to wonder where they'll get their next meal. Many would have been cut off from assistance altogether.

These cuts were put forward to try and hoist an unproved and drastically underfunded state-based workforce bureaucracy experiment on the entire nation. Without any evidence or any study proving its effectiveness, House Republicans wanted to disadvantage poor parents.

The Senate, however, took a much different course. Their Ag Committee chairman, Senator Roberts, actually consulted with their ranking member, Senator Stabenow. There were no disastrous work requirements. No partisan policies cooked up in some extreme conservative think tank somewhere. It largely continued proven policies that both sides have traditionally agreed on.

Thankfully, the conference committee took this same course. This final bill doesn't include devastating SNAP benefit cuts. No one is getting kicked off the rolls. There are no changes to categorical eligibility or severing of the link between SNAP and LIHEAP.

The conference committee rejected the House's onerous child support enforcement proposal, and instead required a study of the current child support option. This study will only be useful in improving policy if USDA includes the experiences of grandparents, victims of domestic violence, and others who may avoid participating in SNAP out of fear that the provision.

This conference report rejects many provisions of the House bill including the state option to privatize SNAP operation. Current law and the administration's standards around merit systems personnel was the appropriate course.

And importantly, there are no additional work requirements.

That's because the existing flexibility that states have to respond to local labor conditions works. And as the conference report notes, we expect states to continue to be able to identify the areas that they wish to include in their areas and to be able to use the labor surplus definition of unemployment for the area having to be twenty percent above the national average for a two-year period. This has worked well for over twenty years. While the flexibly to waive this harsh and unfair rule does not go far enough, we do not wish to make it more restrictive or limiting for states.

While the Farm Bill does clarify that state agency-drafted waivers need the governor's support, this does not require additional steps in the waiver process or interfere with the discretion and authority that a chief executive may have in place. The conference committee does not intend this provision to interfere with state operations by changing the waiver process that states have relied on for twenty years.

This conference report makes a number of administrative improvements and efficiencies, saving a billion dollars. One provision requires state participation in the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which is a database that allows for checks of participation across state lines. Let me be clear: a data match does not mean an individual is committing fraud by intentionally seeking benefits in more than one state. A match can also mean that a participants first state of residence has failed to act on the individuals' reported move.

The National Accuracy Clearinghouse can play an important role in cleaning up state caseloads. This is important because even if a household requests a closure of the case due to a change in residency, the state may not act on it in a timely manner, and there's little a household can do to prove they tried to close their case. States have a duty to assist individuals in the application process and that means, to me, that a state must help individuals who have recently moved. Without evidence of an individual's intent to defraud the program, state agencies should assume dual enrollment is unintentional.

The conference report sets up a reasonable approach to dealing with matches from external data sources. This provision codifies recent USDA regulations that identify the limited number of circumstances in which a state must follow up with most households to verify information it obtains that is likely to impact eligibility or is not required to be reported by the household. There is no change to current policy.

The conference report also supports and codifies recent efforts by USDA to establish clearer and more consistent quality control measures. I expect USDA to develop clear and consistent review standards but not to change what is meant by an error, nor to change the essential quality control review process.

The conference report, as I mentioned earlier, saves a billion dollars. These savings are directly reinvested into nutrition programs. Because of this, more Americans will have access to healthy food. The investments also help to improve SNAP employment and training programs, reinforcing the requirement that states properly assess clients and assign them to programs appropriate to their needs and skills, and asking states to build programs with a demonstrated impact on improving outcomes.

We addressed a long-standing problem--when a SNAP participant is referred to a training program, and the program determines that the services they provide are not well-matched to the need of the participant. States have long been required to do meaningful assessments in order to properly assign clients. The expanded investment in case management should improve this capacity. And this bill emphasized that reassessment is important as well. If a client fails to be successful in a program it is often the result of an inability to comply versus a refusal to comply with what's needed.

The bill and report make clear that states must reassess and reassign the partisan if appropriate. Participants will no longer lose benefits because states are doing a poor job of assigning them to programs that don't work for them.

The conference report also includes an improvement to ensure all states use a standard homeless shelter allowance. When implemented, this provision must maintain the current flexibly that states have around documenting the household circumstances. People experiencing homelessness may now be able to obtain and track receipts or records of their expenses--that is why a standard allowance is such a useful policy. It allows states to deduct modest shelter costs for homeless individuals who have no way of documenting those costs. In addition, a homeless individual may have costs that exceed the standard allowance and they must be able to claim the higher deduction. The standard allowance does not preempt the individuals' rights to deduct actual costs.

I have long argued that we should be increasing SNAP benefits, which currently average a mere $1.40 per person, per meal, to help hungry Americans afford nutritious food. While the bill unfortunately does not provide any additional increase in SNAP benefits, it does require USDA to revise the Thrifty Food Plan on a regular basis. Prior revisions to the Thrifty Food Plan were done in a way that did not increase costs despite food prices increasing and decreasing time available to prepare many foods at home. This provision allows for

future revisions to increase the cost of the plan to more accurately reflect the reality of food purchasing for most Americans. If the cost of the plan goes up, we expect the Secretary to adjust the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Secretary of Agriculture and the president are tuning into this debate. Right now, they are reportedly working behind the scenes to circumvent the will of this Congress by instituting more onerous work requirements administratively. Such a move, I believe, will likely lead to legal action. And next Congress when Democrats are in the Majority, we will use every legislative tool available to block such a move at every turn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say for the Record, in response to my colleague who just spoke, that the average SNAP recipient is on the benefit for less than a year, and the majority of SNAP recipients who can work, in fact, do work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, some of us who support this farm bill wanted to support the rule as well. But, again, the Republicans thought it was important to basically tuck inside this rule language that turns off fast track for procedures for all Yemen resolutions through the end of this Congress.

This is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world right now, and we don't have time to talk about it. In fact, the Republican leadership takes the extraordinary step of doing everything they can to block debate. It is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who has been one of the leaders in this Congress, fighting on behalf of the most vulnerable in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, for those of us who support the farm bill, we want to be able to support the rule for consideration of the farm bill; but, unfortunately, the Republican leadership decided to mess things up by inserting language that would prevent this Congress from debating the war in Yemen, one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.

The gentleman from Washington states: Well, we are going to have a briefing tomorrow. It is not timely.

Well, the bottom line is, in this rule, it not only prohibits us from debating the war in Yemen with regard to the War Powers Resolution, it prohibits us from debating it for the rest of the Congress. What if we learn something tomorrow that prompts action on the other side of the aisle? You basically have said, ``No. No.''

This is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Vermont.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am here to support the farm bill. Unfortunately, my Republican friends made the rule controversial.

But another reason to support the farm bill, in addition to the strong nutrition title for those who are vulnerable here in the United States, the conference report also provides strong support for international food assistance programs, like Food for Peace, Food for Progress in McGovern-Dole, which is a program that I helped write several years ago, which provides food to some of the most vulnerable and poor children in the world in school settings.

So this farm bill, in addition to helping our farmers, in addition to providing food security for people here in the United States, I think, also contributes to our national security around the world. And I point that out so my colleagues understand that this farm bill covers a whole, wide range of areas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I think I am the final speaker here, so I will let the Republicans go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from Washington whether he has any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman has additional speakers over there. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman an additional 2 minutes? I have 3\1/2\, but I am going to use that, but could we give them an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to yield 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to have an additional 2 minutes. If there is no objection, is that----

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to control.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, do I have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7264, a continuing resolution to fund the remainder of the government and extend the National Flood Insurance Program, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act until September 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope people will vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can debate this and vote on keeping our government open. But I would just close by again saying to my colleagues that this farm bill is not a great bill, but it is a good bill. It is the result of bipartisan negotiations at a conference committee that produced something that I think both Democrats and Republicans can come together and support.

I am supporting this bill because it is good on the nutrition title. As you know, I have spent a lot of time in this Chamber talking about the issues of hunger and food insecurity in this country.

There are 40 million Americans who don't have enough to eat, who are hungry, and this is in the richest and most powerful country in the world. I am ashamed of that fact. Every Member of this House should be ashamed of that fact.

Hunger is a political condition. We can fix it, if we had the political will.

This farm bill is not as robust as I would like it to be under the nutrition title, but it does no harm. It doesn't increase hunger. It doesn't throw people off of SNAP. It doesn't make hunger worse in this country. It is deserving of bipartisan support, so I hope all of my Democratic colleagues will vote in favor of this farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all those who came together to construct this compromise. It is a much, much better product than what came out of this House, and this is a vote that we can be proud of. I hope that everybody will support it.

Finally, I regretfully have to say I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, because the Republicans couldn't help themselves and had to insert this Yemen issue into this rule.

This issue has been going on for years. This is not a new phenomenon, what is happening in Yemen. It is a tragedy that has gone on for years. We know it is happening. We know it is long time past since we should act.

Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the rule, have another rule that is just on the farm bill, and we ought to be debating this issue of Yemen.

Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``yes'' on the farm bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1176 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1176, providing for further consideration of a very important piece of legislation for America's farmers and ranchers: the conference report to accompany H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, commonly referred to as the farm bill. This rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, as the House considered its version of the farm bill, I spoke in this Chamber about a farm bill listening tour I conducted in my own district, traveling to every county that I represent to hear from and listen to input and the concerns from farmers, ranchers, and producers across the State of Washington.

In the days since the House passed that bill earlier this summer, there has been growing concern that the job would not get done and that the 2014 farm bill would expire and our Nation's farm country would be left without the crucial tools this legislation provides to strengthen the farm safety net and provide certainty and flexibility to America's farmers and ranchers.

Fortunately, with the legislation before us today, we can report that this is not the case. After months of painstaking negotiations between the House and the Senate conferees, we have an agreement before us. This agreement, while not including several provisions I would have liked to have seen, sets us on a better path for our farmers and ranchers, for our rural communities, for small businesses, and for consumers across the country at the grocery store and at kitchen tables.

With this conference agreement to the farm bill, I can now go back to my district and confidently report to my constituents that we have provided a strong foundation to help our farmers survive a 50 percent drop in net farm income over the past 4 years. I can go back to Okanogan County and tell my constituents in Pateros that we have

strengthened market access programs and provided strong resources to open new sources for exporting across the globe.

I can tell farmers in Grant County that we have protected crop insurance and made several key improvements, including for whole farm revenue coverage for specialty crop producers. I can tell dairy producers in Yakima County that we have improved the dairy safety net for large, mid-sized, and small dairies. I can report back to producers in Prosser, in Benton County, who stressed the importance of agriculture research, that we have provided an increase in funding for research, extension, and education projects.

With the bill before us, I can let key agriculture partners in our community like Washington State University know that we will keep American agriculture at the forefront of innovation and productivity. Farmers from East Wenatchee will hear from me that this farm bill invests in critical cost-share and incentive-based programs to help farm families improve our soil, water, and other natural resources. I can tell farmers in Othello, in Adams County, concerned with the regulatory burdens on their shoulders, that this legislation protects our producers from costly, additional, and unnecessary red tape.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today as a third-generation farmer to say that this farm bill takes strong steps to address challenges facing America's agricultural community. The rule we bring before the House provides for further consideration of the conference report to H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, legislation that is critically important to my district in central Washington, and to rural districts across this great country.

This legislation maintains and strengthens important policies like Price Loss Coverage, Agricultural Risk Coverage, commodity loans, Dairy Margin Coverage, livestock disaster programs, and crop insurance. It enhances and permanently funds the Foreign Market Development Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, which are so vital for export-driven agricultural economies like those in my State of Washington.

It increases funding for land-grant universities, research, and education, as well as special research initiatives, including for specialty crops and organic research.

This legislation makes strides to expand quality broadband to all of rural America by including forward-looking standards to ensure we are meeting next-generation rural broadband needs. It also improves the tools available to reduce forest fuel loads that increase the size and force of catastrophic wildfires. By renewing key categorical exclusion and expanding its purpose to allow for expedited reduction of hazardous fuels in our forests, we can continue to reduce the threat these wildfires pose on rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, with support from the 2014 farm bill, American farmers have been able to combat depressed prices and severe drops in farm income, but they would not have been able to do so without a robust safety net in place. The conference report before us will build upon this effort and ensure a steady food supply will be on the shelves and in our markets for years to come.

As I mentioned, it doesn't include everything I would have liked to have seen in this bill, but, in reality, no piece of legislation is perfect, particularly comprehensive bills that have been negotiated for months But the fact of the matter is, this farm bill includes important and significant wins for American farmers and ranchers. It is now our responsibility to get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, the people's House has more than 20 farmers, ranchers, and producers serving in this body. Among us are a dairyman from central California; a blueberry farmer from Maine; a rancher from South Dakota; two rice farmers, one from California and another from Minnesota; a cattleman from Kentucky; an almond farmer from California; and, yes, a proud hops farmer from the Yakima Valley of Washington State.

This is the first farm bill that I have had the opportunity to engage in since coming to Congress, Mr. Speaker. I have spent my whole life on the farm, and my life in public service, including serving as Washington State's Director of the Department of Agriculture, has been spent working on behalf of American farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and families.

It is an honor today to bring this rule forward for the conference report to accompany the farm bill, H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act. I humbly urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the bill, and strengthen the future for America's farmers and all those who depend on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), who will expound on the importance of this bill and how it does respond to the plights in which farmers find themselves today and actually does give certainty to family farmers around the country.

Mr. Speaker, we all look forward to the classified briefing that we will be a part of tomorrow with the Department of Defense and others to talk about the situation in Yemen. It seems premature to make decisions regarding that issue at this present time, but tomorrow will give us much enlightenment on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to get back to the issue at hand, the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

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

Mr. Speaker, just let me say: Are the atrocities that are taking place in Yemen a serious matter? Absolutely, they are.

Do they deserve to be debated and discussed to find solutions on what we

can provide? Absolutely. And after tomorrow morning's briefing, if there is something that we feel that we need to do, we can respond with quickness, with nimbleness, and we can provide those solutions if we think there is a necessary solution to be had.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

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

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

I would just like to say that my farmers and ranchers in the State of Washington, as well as we have heard earlier from the State of Oregon, do support the strengthening of the provisions in this bill to make sure that the farm economy can continue on in as strong a manner as possible, so there is widespread support in agricultural country around the Nation for this farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Our military is not involved in hostilities surrounding the Yemeni civil war. As I said, tomorrow we are having a briefing that if we learn things, we can respond with urgency and nimbleness.

To speak on this issue further, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple more speakers, yes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of interest in this issue, as you can tell.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Speaker, there is no objection from this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how much gratitude I feel to the gentleman from Massachusetts for leading in a bipartisan manner. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), my good colleague

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for being gracious with his time, but, no, I have no more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his yielding extra time to us to allow many of our Members to speak on this important issue. I look forward to reciprocating at some point in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as you heard, there are a lot of wins in this bill for rural America, especially in these extremely difficult economic times in farm country around the United States. The 2018 farm bill will help provide certainty for the American farmer and for the rural communities that they support.

Families who work every day to put food on our tables deserve our support.

Before I yield back, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was led by the American Farm Bureau that has no fewer than 489 organizations around the country, every State in the union, supporting

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the farm bill, the rule that allows us to bring this to the floor, and the lives I want to save in the West and across America, because this bill takes important steps to help improve the management of our Federal forests by extending expedited management tools for insect and disease projects in eastern Oregon and expanding it to hazardous fuels reduction to reduce the threat of fire and smoke. These are real life and safety issues in our communities.

The great tragedies we have seen in California this last summer, in Paradise this last fall, I guess, they are repeating themselves year after year as climate change and drought and higher temperatures and the overgrowth in our forests all come together to create catastrophic wildfires, as pictured here. These are monsters when they fire up. They kill.

It is unfortunate that the provisions that the House passed as part of the farm bill were rejected by the Democrats in the Senate. It is unfortunate because, after these catastrophic fires, we should get in and be able to remove the fuel load so that the next fire doesn't burn even more intensely, which is what happens. It is a bigger threat to the firefighters, because these snags that remain are destined to fall. This year, we lost a firefighter to a snag that fell.

But they rejected that.

While we are expanding CE authorities, categorical exclusion authorities, in some forests, the House provision said we should expand it to all forests so that we can begin to catch up and remove the excess fuel load from our forests, so that when we do get fire, which is a natural part of environment, it does not become so destructive that it burns up entire towns.

Unfortunately, again, Senate Democrats rejected that.

So we are left with a bill that is pretty good. The farm bill provisions are terrific, as the leader has said.

But when we are losing towns, and people and firefighters in our communities are choked with smoke, we can do better.

Last night, in Medford, Oregon, the Jackson County Commission held a public meeting to talk about this fire situation we face. A dad from Jackson County recounted how his daughter with cystic fibrosis had to move away. He told the audience: ``It's been devastating for us as a family. We wish our daughter could live with us.'' Then he went on to say: ``When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.''

So you want to talk about life and safety and health issues in America, we should have done better with the Senate. But we are doing okay with this bill, and I intend to support it.

Today I rise in support of the underlying legislation: the 2018 Farm Bill.

This bill takes steps to help improve the management of our federal forests by extending expedited management tools for insect and disease projects in eastern Oregon and expanding it to hazardous fuels reduction to reduce the threat of fire and smoke.

We've also allowed more local involvement from counties in forest management projects and extended funding for collaborative forest projects.

These all help, but it is unfortunate the Senate Democrats rejected provisions from the House bill that would have greatly reduce the threat of fires and smoke in all of Oregon.

The ability to clean up the burned dead timber after a fire-- responsibly and where it makes sense--and replant a new, healthy forest for the next generation? Excluded.

Providing tools that help manage our forests in western and southern Oregon--where some of Oregon's worst fires have been in recent years? Excluded, even after devastating fires like the Klondike Fire pictured here burned more than 175,000 acres.

People in southern Oregon are tired of choking on smoke every year because of poor management. Recently a dad from Jackson County recounted how his daughter with cystic fibrosis had to move away saying ``it's been devastating for us a family. We wish our daughter could live with us.'' But, as he went on to say, ``When you can't breathe, nothing else matters.''

You can understand people's disappointment when they see little here to help their region, while efforts continue to lock up more southern Oregon forests as more wilderness--a contributor to several large fires in recent years.

As someone from Medford told me last night, if something doesn't change, ``We're gonna get killed.''

Meanwhile, in central Oregon, the 5,000 residents of Crooked River Ranch are worried they will become the next Paradise, California. We've worked together on a simple public safety bill to make a small adjustment to a neighboring Wilderness Study Area so critical fire prevention work can be done to protect the community.

Our bill passed the House unanimously, passed a Senate Committee unanimously, has broad support from the local community, and is ready to be voted on today.

Unfortunately, partisan posturing in the Senate is holding this critical public safety bill hostage over unrelated public lands measures.

The Senate needs to stop playing with fire and the lives of people of Crooked River Ranch, and pass my legislation before the end of this Congress. We do not want to see images of homes turned to ash and lives destroyed in central Oregon all because politics got in the way of protecting lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, first, in opposition to the rule. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct. Here we are in the waning days of this session of Congress, and we can't produce a rule that specifically focused on the farm bill. They had to include, in the late hours of last night, language that affects our policy as it relates to Yemen.

I commend my colleague from Massachusetts for his efforts to try to strip section 2 out of the title of this rule, so we could have a rule that specifically addresses the farm bill. It wasn't done. We should go back and make sure that it is and allow that policy to develop in the debate that we need on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am a representative of one of the largest agriculture producing districts in the Nation, my rural western Wisconsin district. I own a farm myself. We rotate corn and beans. We have some beef cattle in from time to time. No one appreciates the hard work that our family farmers are going through to stay in business today more than I.

This past year, I had countless meetings with family farmers throughout my State. I have never seen the palpable fear in their eyes or heard it in their voices than we have this last year after dealing with multiple years of low commodity prices. Our family farmers are being driven out of the business in droves right now.

I appreciate, having been involved in farm policy in the past--and mind you, we only have a chance to correct farm policy every 5 or 6 years in this place--how difficult it is to put together a coalition to get a farm bill done.

There are many things in this bill that are commendable. As co-chair of the House Organic Caucus, we have perhaps the strongest organic title of any farm bill ever produced. We have good agriculture research programs in this farm bill, a plus-up in funding for rural broadband expansion, a new beginning farmer program, and the nutrition title was protected after what was initially reported out of the House earlier this year.

But I reluctantly stand today in opposition of the overall bill because it is not addressing the two evils that are driving our family farmers out of business today: overproduction and the trade war that President Trump has created.

In fact, they are doubling down on encouraging policy that will lead to more production, which will flood the market and drive commodity prices down even more, by expanding the title 1 subsidy programs.

These are taxpayer subsidies that primarily go to a few, but very large, agribusinesses. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the title 1 subsidies are going to the 20 percent largest farm operations in the country.

The average person back home would be astounded to see how many subsidy checks are being mailed to addresses in Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. Under this bill, they are even expanding those subsidy opportunities by what is called a multiple entity rule that was, again, included in the final conference report.

That means no longer just husbands and wives will qualify for subsidies operating on the farm, but sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, and cousins will be able to qualify now for these subsidy programs. Not only will that encourage, again, these large operations to ramp up production, driving prices down, but it is not fiscally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, we are in an era now of huge budget deficits, yet we are finding an additional $1 billion under the title 1 subsidy programs, primarily by taking it out of the conservation fund by reducing funding under the Conservation Stewardship Program from $1.8 billion to $1 billion. That will jeopardize quality water programs throughout our Nation.

So, unfortunately, this bill is not going to solve the problem, the crisis that our farmers are facing today, which is driving them out of business in record numbers: the overproduction in agriculture in our country and this trade war.

I think we should take a little bit more time and get the policy right, because we won't have another opportunity for another 5 or 6 years, and that is going to be too late for too many of our family farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation and, as a farm bill conferee, I would like to pass along my sincere thanks to the Members and staff who worked diligently to put together a good final product for the American people.

This farm bill strikes the right balance by providing certainty to our hardworking farmers, while protecting our most vulnerable by rejecting the harsh SNAP cuts that were contained in the original House Republican bill, a very meaningful restoral.

In fact, today, I was reminded, as I volunteered at the Capital Area Food Bank, that they serve 500,000 individuals who are food insecure annually in the Maryland, D.C., and Virginia area.

I am particularly pleased with provisions that will benefit New York's dairy farmers and producers of specialty crops, which together form the backbone of the agricultural economy in my 20th Congressional District and across upstate New York.

This farm bill also recognizes the importance of expanding broadband access to the American people and, particularly, to those who don't have access to a high-speed connection.

I am disappointed, however, that we were unable to agree on stronger language to ensure Federal money is spent wisely. Investments in broadband internet infrastructure have the greatest impact on American lives and should be dealt with in a very resourceful way.

Specifically, I argued for more interagency coordination. The Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, need to coordinate with each other, not merely consult, when funding critical broadband internet infrastructure.

When it comes to broadband internet spending, this bill provides limited investments and, because of that, we have a duty to stretch every dollar as far as possible.

It is unfortunate that this concept was not included in the farm bill, but I plan to continue advocating for legislation that would require greater coordination amongst Federal agencies as we build out broadband. I was proud to work on a bipartisan basis to provide coordination language in the ACCESS BROADBAND Act which has already passed the House and is now being considered in the Senate.

I will continue working with my colleagues to improve coordination of Federal broadband programs so we can increase efficiency and eliminate duplicative or wasteful efforts.

Finally, while I am grateful for the overall outcome of the legislation, as a conferee representing the views of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was disappointed that on many issues in this legislation involving committee jurisdiction, the committee was not properly consulted. It is my hope that, in the future, all conferees will be allowed greater involvement and their voices will be heard, especially on issues that cross committee lines.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.