Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, 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, let me begin by thanking my good friend and the ranking member, Collin Peterson, as well as my fellow conferees and the staff for their leadership in negotiating this conference report.

The farm bill conference report is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill, but certainly worthy of our support. I am pleased Members on both sides of the aisle and across the Chamber were able to reach consensus on how to show the American people that Congress can work together.

This agreement protects SNAP by rejecting proposals in the House farm bill that would have severely weakened the program and taken food assistance away from nearly 2 million people.

This agreement increases access to healthy foods in underserved communities and takes steps to tackle food waste, which we know is a major problem.

This agreement builds new opportunities to improve soil health and water quality in the Great Lakes.

This agreement provides beginning and minority farmers and ranchers additional tools and resources needed to own and operate successful businesses.

This agreement authorizes $350 million per year for rural broadband coverage.

This agreement expands investment in low-income, urban, and rural communities.

Finally, this agreement provides certainty and sound agricultural policies for America's producers and consumers. I encourage my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the 2018 Farm Bill continues our safety net for farmers and maintains a safety net for struggling Americans. I would like to share with my colleagues a little bit more about how the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the 2018 Farm Bill, makes key improvements to protect the integrity of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, while still preserving critical food access for millions of families.

The bill does not accomplish everything on this front that I and many of my democratic colleagues might have wanted. Many of us would have been looking for ways to make needed investments in this vital food benefit for tens of millions of Americans. But, the provisions related to SNAP, the nation's most effective nutrition program, make modest and useful improvements in this essential weapon in the fight against hunger in our nation. Just as important, the bill protects SNAP by rejecting proposals in the House Farm Bill that would have severely weakened the program and taken food assistance away from nearly 2 million people.

First, I would like to talk about the SNAP improvements in the bill, one of which will help people who are experiencing homelessness to get better food assistance. SNAP's benefit formula assumes that families will spend 30 percent of their net income for food. In determining their net income, households can deduct certain expenses that limit the funds they have available to pay for food, including housing.

Like other individuals and families, those who are homeless often face housing costs, like paying for a motel room or reimbursing friends or family for a temporary home. Congress created the homeless shelter deduction to give them access to additional SNAP benefits by allowing them to deduct their shelter costs. The 2002 Farm Bill improved the deduction by allowing states to set it at a flat $143 rather than requiring them to collect and submit the paperwork needed to verify their shelter costs. My own state of Ohio adopted this option years ago. I cannot understand why all states haven't taken this easy step to assist homeless households obtain food assistance that reflects their actual out of pocket costs. I am pleased the conference report requires all states to adopt the deduction and raise the $143 figure each year to reflect inflation, so the deduction keeps its value over time.

In setting the homeless shelter deduction as a standard part of the program, the Farm Bill also maintains its key features. States will have flexibility to decide what kinds of documentation they will accept from clients claiming shelter costs, including the client's statement of what they have been spending. And, states must continue to help homeless households claim the regular shelter deduction rather than the homeless deduction if that would get them more SNAP benefits.

Another SNAP improvement in the conference report will set the stage for future, much-needed improvements in the basic SNAP benefit. The bill includes a House Farm Bill provision requiring USDA to revise its Thrifty Food Plan--which reflects the cost of a basic, nutritionally adequate diet--on a regular basis to reflect the latest information on food costs, actual consumption, and dietary guidelines. This is an important step because SNAP benefit amounts are based on the Thrifty Food Plan.

When USDA updates the Thrifty Food Plan to reflect current consumer choices and newer healthy food guidelines, the Administration has always required that USDA's new Thrifty Food Plan food basket cost the same as the old basket. That means that USDA has had to make unrealistic assumptions about what a typical household can actually do to buy and prepare food. Academics, including the National Academy of Sciences, have noted how distorted the current package is relative to what is realistic about what households typically buy, how much time it takes them and how much food that meets the dietary guidelines actually costs--even when it is a very bare bones diet. I want to make clear that our provision does not have that cost limitation and we fully expect the Administration to report out to us what the cost of a modern Thrifty Food Plan would costs. I expect that means that the cost will increase and as a result that SNAP' s maximum allotment will also increase, an adjustment that is long overdue.

The conference report also has provisions to help more food retailers support SNAP. Nearly 9,700 Ohio food stores participate in SNAP. In my own district, the 11th District, it is just over 800 stores, ranging from large superstores to local farmers' markets. The new bill will enable retailers to offer incentives for SNAP participants. Stores will still have to treat SNAP participants like other customers, but with one exception. Stores will now have the option of offering them modest incentives, such as targeted coupons.

As I mentioned earlier, the conference report is as important for what it does not do regarding SNAP as for what it does do. The Conference Committee rejected all the harsh benefit and eligibility changes in the House bill, which means SNAP will still be available to the tens of millions of Americans who use it to help them afford a decent diet.

Most notably, the conference report rejects the House approach of taking away SNAP benefits from those who struggle to work. Instead, it seeks to improve clients' job outcomes by focusing on job training. It encourages states to work more directly with local employers, expands the options that states have over the types of programs they can offer through their SNAP employment and training programs, and reallocates funds to states with existing pilot programs and states with programs that target specific populations with barriers to work, such as the formerly incarcerated. While job search will no longer be allowed as an allowable stand-alone activity, states will be able to continue supervised job search programs as they see fit, including online job search that meets state supervision requirements and definitions.

The Conference Committee also rejected House provisions that would shorten SNAP's three-month time limit to one month and expand the population subject to the rule to a broader group of recipients. We also rejected the House's proposal to limit states' flexibility to waive high-unemployment areas from the three-month limit. Contrary to statements by some House members, governors are aware of the waivers their state SNAP agencies seek, but the conference report clarifies current practice by stating that states seek should waivers with the authority provided to them by their chief executive. We specifically directed USDA that this clarification should have no impact on the current waiver process and that the agency may not add additional steps or clearances to the application process.

We also rejected the House's proposal to undo a long-standing state option called categorical eligibility. Under this option, states can import the gross income or asset tests from a TANF-funded program into SNAP. States can simplify and streamline SNAP eligibility and enrollment processes but easing these rules and they can expand who is eligible for the program including more working poor, recently unemployed with modest savings and more senior households with savings above the federal limits. This House proposal would have eliminated benefits for some 2 million people in nearly 1 million households. I appreciate Senator Stabenow's leadership in fighting back against this proposal.

Another House proposal the conference report wisely rejected would force all states to require SNAP participants to cooperate with child support enforcement--something that's now a state option as a condition of SNAP eligibility. Given the deep concerns about the current option we heard from community groups representing grandparents and victims of domestic violence in states that have adopted it, we could not mandate the option. In fact, we included a study on this option to better understand its impact. USDA can help us gather more information about the damage this option is causing particularly by gathering the perspective of those individuals who avoid SNAP out of fear of having to cooperate with child support enforcement.

In contrast to the issues I have discussed above, strengthening SNAP's payment accuracy and reducing fraud is not a partisan question, and the conference report reflects that fact. For example, it requires all states to implement a pilot program called the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which uses data matching to ensure an individual or household doesn't receive SNAP from two different states simultaneously. This is relatively rare and can occur due to state error or deliberate fraud. It usually is not due to fraud--instead, it generally happens when SNAP participants move to a new state and apply for benefits there, after notifying their former state that they were leaving, but the former state does not expeditiously take them off the program. Nevertheless, it is a problem that needs addressing, and this new interstate data matching will help states do that by making their processes for disenrolling families more efficient and accurate. This will only be an improvement to the program if USDA ensures that this process happens seamlessly for applicants, including resolving any issues with a state that shows the clients remain enrolled. SNAP participants are by their very nature struggling to afford food and life's necessities. They cannot afford time of work, long distance phone calls or attorneys to settle bureaucratic nuances. The sensible approach would be simply to disenroll the client from the state claiming dual enrollment and let it end there. Without evidence the client was trying to commit a crime by enrolling twice, USDA and states should assume innocent error and leave it at that.

One change that might surprise my colleagues is that we discovered that by dropping a Senate pilot program on income verification

we might actually advance state efforts to streamline verification. The Senate bill included a provision to test using third party data sources, mostly run by private companies to verify income. Large employers like big box stores or fast food chains employ many workers who are also eligible for benefits. They often use a third-party vendor to verify income for programs like SNAP and Medicaid. You would think we would have been anxious to sort how best to move forward with helping states to use this type of verification. The Conference Committee came to understand that many states are already using these private vendors to verify income. As it happens, states are paying for these services for SNAP with a federal match, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is also paying the same vendor for the same data to assist states with verifying income for health benefit determinations. States have access to the HHS data for Medicaid but cannot use it for SNAP under the limits of the contract. Fortunately, HHS can elect an option under the contract to share the same income verification data they provide to Medicaid with SNAP. This would be an extraordinary advancement in simplification and accuracy and it ought to provide the federal government monetary savings. This type of economy of scale in procurement would be a real windfall in contract payment and improve benefit accuracy.

Also, to explore new ways SNAP can help low-income populations, the conference report authorizes USDA to work with states to set up longitudinal data sets using SNAP administrative data and other sources that would allow states, USDA, and researchers to study caseload dynamics and other issues over time. While our preference would be to capture states' entire caseload for the dataset, perfection should not be the enemy of the good. The goal is to pursue research, not to build a perfect dataset. States can decide what will work best for them with respect to how to construct the dataset--whether they want to use a sample of their caseload or some other approach. By contrast, there must be consistent federal rules ensuring the highest degree of data privacy and security for clients. This data is meant to be available to researchers and the public to use, so all personal identifying information must be removed from the records.

That brings me to the issue of quality control. The conference report includes several changes designed to create more consistency among states in how they measure payment accuracy. In the past, FNS has not evenly applied the rules in this area across states; the conference report changes largely codify steps USDA is taking to help address this problem. Going forward, FNS and the states must work together to improve consistency in measuring payment accuracy. For its part, FNS must strengthen federal review of state quality control procedures.

On a related issue, the final conference report eliminates bonuses to states for high and improved performance in key aspects of program operations. States are always expected to deliver high quality services through SNAP to participants. This is required by law and is expected by Congress and taxpayers. Quality, timely and accurate delivery of benefits to eligible households is the basic standard. Eliminating bonuses does not change that. Nor should it change USDA's scrutiny of state performance on these fronts. Payment accuracy, including improper denials, program access and timeliness are all standards against which states must be measured, and when states to not perform to expected standards, USDA must and will continue to take corrective actions.

In sum, while this legislation is necessarily a compromise, overall it will make SNAP stronger and better able to help millions of Americans put food on the table--including families with children, persons with disabilities, and seniors. SNAP is more important to our nation's seniors than many realize.

The typical SNAP household with an elderly member includes a single elderly person with income of about $11,000 a year, or a little below the poverty line. In fact, nearly 3 in 4 SNAP households with an elderly member live in poverty. SNAP households with an elderly member receive an average of about $1,500 a year in benefits.

The House Farm Bill would have cut SNAP eligibility for seniors, made it harder for grandparents informally caring for their grandchildren to participate in SNAP, and subjected older workers to work requirements despite the difficulty they face in the labor market. One of the main strengths of the conference report is that it does not include these and other negative House proposals. That rejection, along with the conference report's modest positive changes, will help SNAP continue to fulfill its role of supporting needy families in our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1176, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purpose, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 2, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.

It is fitting that the House today consider that farm bill because, 28 years ago, another proud Texan, President George H.W. Bush, signed into law the 1990 farm bill.

For the first time since 1990, Congress is poised to pass a new farm bill in the same year that the legislation was first introduced.

In many ways, the 1990 farm bill laid the groundwork for today's U.S. farm policy. The U.S. farm policy is no longer the old command and control policies of the New Deal, but, rather, a market-oriented, risk management approach that helps America's farmers and ranchers survive natural disasters and the predatory trade practices of foreign countries like China.

Our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the very best in the world, but they cannot compete alone against a sea of high and rising foreign subsidies, tariffs, and nontariff trade barriers, nor can they survive alone in the face of record droughts, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. That is why we have a farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, not since the early 2000s has a farm bill been more desperately needed than it is today. Our farmers and ranchers are going through a very difficult recession right now. Net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just 5 years ago, the largest drop since the Great Depression. And farm bankruptcies are more up by more than 30 percent.

We have all seen the devastation of recent wildfires and hurricanes. Less noticed, but no less destructive, is the severe drought that has gripped many parts of the country, perhaps none more so than the one I get to represent.

Even less noticed is the rampant cheating going on in the global trade that hurts our farmers and ranchers every single day. China recently oversubsidized just three crops by more than $100 billion in a single year.

Put in perspective, China spent more on excess illegal subsidies in a year than the entire U.S. safety net covering all commodities will cost in roughly two farm bills. That is why passage of this farm bill is so important.

The farm bill is never easy to pass. The needs of our farmers and ranchers are greater than they have ever been in a long time, but we have operated under a flat budget.

For my colleagues who are concerned about the deficit spending, please note that this farm bill is budget neutral. This follows on the heels of the 2014 farm bill that has come in significantly under budget also.

Mr. Speaker, here are some specifics of the 2018 farm bill:

First, the farm bill honors the request of nearly every farmer and rancher that we do no harm to Federal crop insurance.

Second, we strengthen the farm bill safety net for all farmers and ranchers. Believe it or not, there was actually pressure from some in the other Chamber to cut the farm safety net at a time when the whole point of a farm bill is to help our farm and ranch families.

Third, we strengthened key conservation initiatives, especially the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. These highly successful conservation initiatives serve as a prime example of how voluntary, incentive-based conservation beats burdensome, arbitrary, and costly Washington regulations every single time.

Fourth, we honored the requests of farmers and ranchers to fully fund our trade promotion initiatives, which could not be more important than they are right now. This includes fully funding the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program.

We also succeeded in maintaining the vital link between America's farmers and ranchers and U.S. food aid by preserving the in-kind food assistance to our neighbors in need from around the world.

Fifth, we make some extremely important investments elsewhere in this farm bill: We increase individual Farm Service Agency loan limits, which have not been updated in 16 years; we increase agriculture research funding at a time when we are dangerously lagging behind China.

We also provide Secretary Perdue with the tools he requested to effectively combat the opioid epidemic and also to expand high-quality broadband service in all of rural America.

We increase investment in new crop uses and in specialty crops, including fruits and vegetables, and we increase investments in the Nation's livestock sector by strengthening our Nation's animal disease prevention and management efforts, including the stockpiling of foot- and-mouth disease vaccine.

Finally, it is fair to say that there has been philosophical differences in this conference committee. Achieving commonsense SNAP reforms, preventing wildfires, and providing regulatory relief are just three of the examples.

Despite this, we made commonsense reforms and improved the program integrity and work requirements under SNAP, including involving Governors in the work requirement waivers so that there is political accountability and by reducing State allowances for able-bodied adults without dependents.

We required States to adopt case management practices to help move SNAP beneficiaries from welfare to work, and we eliminate $480 million in bonuses we pay to States for simply doing their jobs. These and other reforms will build on the success we have had in moving more than 9 million people off of SNAP rolls and into the workforce over the past 5 years.

The farm bill will also reduce the forest fuel loads to reduce the incidence and intensity of wildfires. This is achieved by expanding the insect and disease categorical exclusion to remove hazardous fuel loads and empowering State, local, and Tribal authorities to remove timber.

Nobody deserves more credit for working to improve our Nation's forest management than my friend Bruce Westerman from Arkansas, whom I am proud to have as a signatory on this conference report.

These reforms are important, and they are only a start in what we need to be done. Ultimately, we had to make a decision between making as many inroads on reform in these areas as we could or allow farmers and ranchers to be held hostage. Faced with that choice, I chose the route of getting this farm bill done.

We made important inroads wherever we could on these reforms. We worked to provide the strongest safety net possible for our Nation's farmers and ranchers.

In closing, I thank Ranking Member Peterson and our counterparts in the other Chamber for bringing this conference report to final consideration. I extend my sincere gratitude to President Trump and Secretary Perdue for their unwavering support of our farmers and ranchers, and I greatly appreciate the support and hard work of House leadership and members of my Conference, especially my fellow conferees, for all they have done to stand by rural America and those families who feed and clothe us.

For the sake of rural America and our struggling farmers and ranchers, I urge my colleagues to support this farm bill so the President can sign this measure into law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the committee and current chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a former member of the Agriculture Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I would like to also add my thanks to the majority staff and the minority staff in the House, as well as the minority and the majority staff in the Senate. Untold hours were spent getting us to this place by these hardworking men and women who labor in relative anonymity. Collin and I get all the gratitude, pats on the back, hugs, and smooches, and they do all of the hard work.

I would like to recognize Matt Schertz, my staff director; Bart Fischer, deputy staff director and chief economist; Patricia Straughn; Nicole Scott; Rachel Millard; Josh Maxwell; Jennifer Tiller; Paul Balzano; Trevor White; Callie McAdams; Caleb Crosswhite; Carly Reedholm; Mollie Wilken; Mindi Brookhart; John Weber; Jeremy Witte; Ashton Johnston; Yasmin Rey; Darryl Blakey; Abigail Camp; Ricki Schroeder; Margaret Wetherald; John Konya; Maggie Mullins; Faisal Siddiqui; Brian Martin-Haynes; Kevin Norton; Brandon Reeves; and Nicole Bayne for all of their hard work and all of the time spent away from their families over the last year-plus getting to this point.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, there are going to be red and green lights go up behind your head. Pressure that is facing America's farmers and ranchers and their families is just unimaginable to those of us who aren't directly in the business: pressures of 5 years of reduced income; 5 years of burning through savings and capital; 5 years of really difficult circumstances; commodity prices low with no real relief on the horizon; trade turmoil across the world; lots of things going bad; as I mentioned earlier in my conversation, a 30 percent increase in bankruptcies. But, Mr. Speaker, the one thought that troubles me the most is the increase in suicides. The pressures of losing a multigenerational farm and ranch operation must be incredible to cause men and women to decide to make an awful decision as a result of those pressures.

This bill will help alleviate that. This bill takes a look at those pressures, takes a look at the stresses and strains across all of rural America--economic development issues, the issues within just the practice of farming and ranching--and says here are Federal resources that we want to put against those problems, against the issues of farmers going out of business, and continuing to provide to the American consumer the most abundant, safest, and affordable food supply of any developed nation in the world.

Across these last 2 years, with President Trump in office, you have seen an awful lot of comments about ``buy America'' and ``let's produce things in America.'' There is nothing more American than food produced in our Nation, and this bill will keep us in that vein. It will keep those farmers and ranchers taking those risks, risks that none of us could imagine, year in and year out: worrying about Mother Nature, too much rain, too little rain, rain at the wrong time, too hot, not hot enough, all of those things that they have no control over. They will fight that fight day in and day out, and they are the best in the world at doing it.

What they can't do, though, is fight against the cheating in the trade world that is out there, fight against commodity prices that they can't control. They can't control their input costs. They are takers of those costs, and they are takers of prices. They are at the mercy of an awful lot of pressures and stresses and strains that this bill tends to address.

So, Mr. Speaker, the green lights, in my view, when they start lighting up, will be the Members who have taken a look at all these things, all these issues that are facing rural America and our farmers and ranchers, and will say, yes, this bill does, in fact, address those; it does get at those issues; it does offer 5 years of stability for these folks, 5 years of lenders being able to know what the safety net will look like and being able to lend against next year's crop, 5 years of certainty.

We all work better under certainty, and knowing what this farm bill looks like, wrong or different, is far better than the option of us rolling this over to next year and starting this process over. Those green lights will be Members who have looked at all of that and said, yes, this bill is worthy of my support, worthy of my vote.

Mr. Speaker, the red lights will say something entirely different. It will say that we looked at those exact same issues, we looked at these solutions, these Federal resources, and said either they are too much, not enough, they want it to go somewhere else, or, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there will be some who will say, well, there just weren't things in there that we would like to have happen.

Mr. Speaker, the House version that we passed back in June took some mighty bold steps toward reforming SNAP and moving in a direction that most of us believe was supported by the American people. Asking SNAP recipients to work 20 hours a week in order to maintain that public benefit, that public effort, we believe was the right way to go. That was not supported broadly by the body across the building, and we made the compromises necessary to get us to this place.

In spite of that, though, Mr. Speaker, we made good reforms toward the SNAP process, toward program integrity, and making the program work better for folks who need these programs.

The House version never intended to touch, nor did it touch, the folks we will always take care of: the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled, those who are temporarily out of whack. It never touched that.

What it did, Mr. Speaker, was go after those folks who are able- bodied, should be working and should be in the workforce. We have 7 million unfilled jobs today, and there is work ahead of us to make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I thank Collin Peterson for his hard work on the conference committee. I thank our Senate colleagues who took a different view, but we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I pray that when the lights go up behind your head that there are more green lights than red lights, we can get this to the President's desk, and get that certainty for rural America that is necessary.

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

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

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.