Providing for further consideration of 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday about the big-picture numbers behind this cruel bill, how it would cut the SNAP benefits that families rely on to buy groceries by over $20 billion. That includes slashing benefits for vulnerable adults like veterans, the chronically homeless, and teenagers aging out of foster care by $9.2 billion.

There is a provision in this bill that would rip benefits away from nearly 1 million people, mostly from working

families with kids, by eliminating an important State flexibility option called categorical eligibility.

The bill even included a provision that would have constructed barriers to accessing SNAP for those with disabilities who have out-of- pocket utility costs--that is, until Democrats shamed the majority into abandoning it as part of their manager's amendment unveiled late last night.

But get this: this fix didn't come without a cost, Mr. Speaker. Tucked into the manager's package--which was, yet again, written in secret--is a provision that will kick over 600,000 vulnerable adults off of SNAP in the first 2 years after enactment of this bill--2 years before their misguided work bureaucracy goes into effect. Six hundred thousand vulnerable men and women will lose their benefits before they even have the opportunity to take advantage of the majority's new make- work program.

Really? What are you thinking?

This entire bill is an embarrassment, and this manager's amendment only makes it worse. It should be scrapped and sent back to the Agriculture Committee, where we can have real bipartisan negotiations and craft a bill that actually helps people, because despite some changes around the margins, the Republican farm bill remains an unmitigated disaster.

Today I want to zoom in on that big picture and give telling examples of how this disastrous Republican bill would impact real people in their everyday lives, because that is what is at stake with the Republican farm bill. That is what we need to be focussed on, because it goes well beyond the numbers on a page.

McClatchy reported a story earlier this month that put it succinctly, entitled: ``50-Something Food Stamp Recipients Could Face Tough Job Search Under Proposed Rules.''

Take, for example, a woman named Sabrina, who was quoted in the story. She works side jobs, like cleaning houses and doing yard work, but has a difficult time finding steady employment at her age of 59. This bill will take away her benefits, because she may not meet its 20- hour-per-week requirement. She is working. She is exactly the kind of person my Republican friends say they want to support. Do they think she purposely found jobs that pay so little and have so few hours? That doesn't fit so nicely into the majority's press releases, but that is the reality.

Or take, for example, Thomas, a single dad who lost his wife a few years ago and is raising his preteen daughter on his own. He has worked diligently to find stable employment, but jobs are scarce in his community. Without SNAP and reduced-price school meals, Thomas said he and his daughter ``would not be able to survive.''

These are the kind of people my Republican colleagues are demonizing during this debate, and it is deeply frustrating.

Or take Lisa, a working mother of four kids earning about $14 per hour as a nursing assistant. Lisa has to stretch her monthly income to cover rent and utilities after-school care, clothing, and car costs so that she can get to her job. Currently, she receives a modest SNAP benefit to feed her family and her kids receive free school meals, but because her income is just over the 130 percent threshold for a family of five, she would automatically lose her SNAP benefits if this bill becomes law.

For Lisa, SNAP makes an incredible difference in her ability to feed her children.

Or take Elton, a U.S. Navy veteran who lost his benefits for 2 years because of the strict work requirements and time limits that are already part of the SNAP law. During the 2-year period he was unable to access SNAP benefits, Elton was hungry every day wondering what he could eat in order to get by.

It wasn't that Elton chose not to work. He worked physically demanding jobs his entire life, but he lost his job after an injury. He continues to struggle with health conditions and doesn't have reliable access to transportation; issues that are exacerbating his job search. Under this bill, Elton may lose his modest food benefits entirely.

These are real people, and if the majority on the Agriculture Committee actually took the time and did a hearing on the heartless nutrition title in this bill, they would have heard these and many other real-life stories.

Take a moment to think about what you are doing here. My Republican colleagues are denying food benefits to veterans, single dads struggling to find work, and working moms. Why? Because Paul Ryan asked you to? Because of a myth that people aren't struggling? It is sickening.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just legislation by sound bite; bad legislation. It demonizes the poor and trades in stereotypes, apparently just to help some in the majority with their next hit on FOX News.

This bill has real consequences. It will hurt real people, our constituents, yours and mine, in every single congressional district in this country.

Now, it is obvious that this isn't a serious attempt at legislating, because the process here was atrocious. The majority ignored the recommendations from Democratic and Republican witnesses during the Agriculture Committee's 23 hearings on SNAP. Controversial provisions were inserted into this bill without explanation on where they came from. I asked. I still can't find out. Democrats were left in the dark as this legislation was drafted, we were left to read about it in news reports; a total affront to the bipartisan tradition that has defined the farm bill for years.

Now, the majority may be calling this a farm bill, but it is really a total transformation of our social safety net. It is a farm bill that doesn't even improve the farm economy. Let me state, our farmers work hard, they should be valued, and they certainly deserve a hell of a lot better than what is contained in this bill.

If Republicans want to hurt our workers and denigrate the poor, they are going to have to do it alone, because, make no mistake about it, that is what this bill is designed to do and that is what it will do unless the responsible adults in the Republican Party join us in defeating it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from Washington, is leaving, I would just urge him to read the bill, because if he did, he would realize that if this bill were to become law, there are 60,000 people in his home State of Washington who would lose SNAP benefits just due to categorical eligibility changes alone; more would lose their benefits, but just for this one tweak in this bill.

The majority of the people who would lose their benefits under categorical eligibility changes are working families, working families with kids. Children, Mr. Speaker, will lose their SNAP benefits and many of them will lose access to free school meals.

So, again, for all the talk on the other side about how this bill is somehow a good bill for families, read the bill. It is a pretty cruel bill for working families and for children.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that we defeat the previous question, and if so, I will offer an amendment ensuring that before the legislation can take effect, the President must certify to Congress that none of the administration's recent trade and tariff actions and negotiations will harm U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for reminding us that there were 51 amendments made in order, but he forgot to mention that 54 were blocked.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maine coming here and giving a speech to the cameras, but I would suggest he read the bill. When he says that nobody will lose their benefits, no benefits will be cut from SNAP, he is wrong. The bottom line is that benefits will be cut. Benefits will be cut to support an underfunded, unproven, ridiculous excuse for a workforce and training program.

I also should say I hope nobody wants to emulate the State of Maine when it comes to dealing with people who are struggling in poverty and who need food. I would instruct my colleagues to read an article that appeared in The Washington Post last year about what Maine's harsh policies have resulted in.

A veteran who served this country with distinction lost his job due to an injury and, because of Maine's strict work requirements, was thrown off of his SNAP benefits, became homeless, and was skinning squirrels in order to be able to survive. That is not a compassionate policy that I think any State or, certainly, this country should want to reach toward.

One of the things I am proud about the SNAP program is that it means that we recognize that we have an obligation to make sure that nobody in this country goes hungry. Why is that such a radical idea? Why has this program been so demonized?

When the gentleman talks about a life of dependency, read the statistics from the USDA. The average time somebody is on SNAP is less than a year. That is not a life of dependency. I am not sure what he is talking about.

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

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

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

I include in the Record the article that I referred for you to read called ``Trump to Poor Americans: Get to Work or Lose Your Benefits,'' which talks about a veteran in Maine that basically was shut out of his food benefit because of Maine's policies.

[From the Washington Post, May 22, 2017]

Trump to Poor Americans: Get To Work or Lose Your Benefits

(By Caitlin Dewey and Tracy Jan)

For a period last year after he lost his food stamps, Tim

Keefe, an out-of-work and homeless Navy veteran, used his

military training to catch, skin and eat squirrels, roasting

the animals over an open fire outside the tent he pitched in

frigid Augusta, Maine.

The new additions to Keefe's diet resulted from a decision

by state authorities to tighten work requirements for

recipients of the social safety net--forcing the 49-year-old,

who lost his job at a farm equipment factory because of an

injury, off the food stamp rolls.

``I was eating what I could find, and borrowed from friends

and strangers,'' Keefe

said in testimony to the Maine legislature. ``There were many

times . . . when I would go two or even three days without

food. If one was inclined to lose a lot of weight, I could

recommend this diet wholeheartedly.''

Now the Trump administration in its first major budget

proposal has proposed more stringent work requirements--

similar to those in effect in Maine and other states--to

limit eligibility for food stamps and a host of other

benefits as part of sweeping cuts to anti-poverty programs.

The White House budget proposal, due to be unveiled on

Tuesday, would reduce spending on anti-poverty programs from

food stamps to tax credits and welfare payments by $274

billion over a decade, largely by tightening eligibility for

these programs, according to administration officials. With

additional reforms on Medicaid and disability insurance,

total safety net cuts would top $1 trillion over 10 in years.

Making low-income Americans work to qualify for so-called

welfare programs is a key theme of the budget. ``If you are

on food stamps and you are able bodied, we need you to go to

work,'' said budget director Mick Mulvaney during a White

House briefing on Monday.

He said the strengthened requirements in the budget focuses

on putting the 6.8 million unemployed or underemployed

Americans back to work. ``There is a dignity to work,'' he

said, ``and there's a necessity to work to help the country

succeed.''

The White House did not offer details Monday on how the

work requirements would be implemented, other than saying it

would be ``phased in'' for able-bodied adults without

dependent children.

The White House estimated the combined reforms to the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as

food stamps, would generate nearly $193 billion in savings

over a decade.

In addition to SNAP reforms, Trump will propose taking the

earned income and child tax credits away from undocumented

immigrants working in the United States, many of whom pay

taxes or have American born-children. That reform alone would

save $40 billion over a decade, according to the White House.

Anti-poverty advocates say the White House could implement

its desired reforms to SNAP in two ways: require recipients

to work more than the current minimum of 20 hours a week, or

cut the unemployment waivers in areas with high joblessness

rates.

The influential Heritage Foundation, as well as a number of

House conservatives have championed a crackdown on waivers,

leading many anti-poverty advocates to conclude that is the

most likely way the White House would implement its proposed

reforms.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage

Foundation who has asked the White House to prioritize work

requirements, said the Trump administration needs to ``go

after'' the four million able-bodied adults without

dependents in the food stamp program.

``You say to them, `We will give you assistance, but come

to the office one day a week to do job search or community

service,'' ' Rector said. ``When Maine did that, they found

almost immediately that their caseload dropped 85 percent.''

Critics say such a change could endanger people like Keefe,

a veteran who has been unable to find a job after injuring

his wrist on the job at a plow factory in Rockland, Maine. As

a result, Keefe now is medically unable to lift more than 25

pounds--which disqualifies him from other work in

manufacturing.

The Navy veteran was one of several thousand former food

stamp recipients who lost benefits when Maine, in 2015,

declined to renew its waiver and reinstated statewide work

requirements. He has spent much of the last year living in a

tent.

``I don't wanna worry no one,'' said Keefe, who recently

testified to Maine's Committee on Health and Human Services

about the impact the work requirement had on him. But, he

added: ``I hope they understand that people fall through the

cracks.''

The Trump administration is considering other changes to

SNAP. While details remain sparse, Mulvaney said the federal

government would be asking states to share in the costs for

the food stamps program, through a phased-in ``state match''

so they have a ``little more skin in the game.''

``We believe in, the social safety net. We absolutely do,''

Mulvaney said. ``What we've done is not to try and remove the

safety net for folks who need it, but to try and figure out

if there's folks who don't need it that need to be back in

the workforce.''

Suspending employment waivers would hit hard in areas with

high unemployment such as southern and central California,

where the unemployment rate can spike as high as 19 percent,

as well as cities such as Detroit and Scranton, Pa., where

joblessness remains rampant. The change would also hit hard

in large portions of New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Georgia,

Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Idaho and Michigan.

``It's unconscionable, cruel and ineffective,'' said Josh

Protas, the vice president of public policy at MAZON, a

national anti-hunger organization. ``I'm honestly not sure

what their goal is.''

Critics say the changes in unemployment waivers would be

devastating for Native American families living on

reservations in North and South Dakota, Arizona and Montana

where there is chronic poverty and high unemployment.

``The President's budget proposal will force kids in rural

America to go hungry while wasting billions of taxpayer

dollars on misplaced priorities like a wall that won't keep

us safe,'' said Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), in a statement to

the Post. ``Parents in Montana and across Indian Country

should not have to choose between food for their tables, gas

for their cars, and shoes for their kids.''

The number of Americans on SNAP remains high, however. In

2016, 44 million Americans receive the benefits, compared to

just 28 million people in 2008.

``They have not come down like we would expect them to

do,'' Mulvaney said. ``That raises a very valid question: Are

there folks on SNAP who shouldn't be?''

Anti-hunger advocates argue that, generally speaking, there

are not. Because SNAP benefits decrease gradually with

increased income, there is no incentive for people to avoid

work to get benefits--a phenomenon economists call the

``welfare cliff.'' And benefits are too small for people to

subsist on them without working: The average food stamp

benefit was $465 a month for a family of four in 2015. Most

people are on the program for between seven and nine months

on average.

``The notion that people would prefer not to work to get

that benefit, give me a break,'' said U.S. Representative Jim

McGovern, (D-Mass.) a longtime anti-hunger advocate. ``This

is a lousy and rotten thing to do to poor people. They look

at SNAP as an ATM to pay for their other priorities.''

Additionally, three quarters of households using SNAP

contain children, seniors, or people with disabilities, said

Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits

Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Without SNAP, the

country would have had 3 to 4.5 million more people in

poverty during the recession, she said.

More than a quarter of able-bodied adults without

dependents on SNAP do not have a high school diploma, Waxman

said; another 57 percent don't have college degrees--putting

them at a disadvantage when it comes to finding work.

A number are also veterans, young adults aging out of the

foster care system, and felons recently released from jail.

SNAP recipients who cannot find work, for these or other

reasons, are supposed to attend job training programs--but

they're not widely available because of lack of funding.

``This is the trick. On the one hand, you want people to do

something, when in fact a lot of folks may not realistically

be able to find a job,'' Waxman said. ``Most states don't

want to put the money in. This is a dilemma that we're in.''

The evidence that stricter work requirements actually cause

people to get jobs is mixed, at best. In Kansas, which

reinstated the requirements in October 2014, 40 percent of

unemployed adults were still unemployed a year after being

kicked off SNAP. Among former SNAP participants who lost

benefits, the average annual income was only $5,562,

according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, a

right-wing think tank based in Florida.

Progress has also been hotly debated in Maine, a state that

conservatives regularly hold up as evidence that stricter

work-requirements are effective. When the state dropped its

waiver in 2015, the number of unemployed adults in the

program immediately fell by nearly 80 percent.

But a May 2016 report by the state found that nearly 60

percent of those affected individuals did not report any

income in the year after they left the program--suggesting

they were still unemployed or underemployed a year later.

On the national level, Michael Tanner, a senior fellow who

focuses on social welfare issues at the Cato Institute, a

libertarian think tank, said he doesn't think similar

mandates will have a huge impact on moving large numbers of

recipients into employment or result in significant budget

savings. Most SNAP recipients who can work are already

working, and many of those who are not meet one of the

various exemptions such as being disabled.

``It's making a statement that Republicans think people who

are on public assistance should be doing all they can to get

off,'' Tanner said, ``and that means working whenever

possible.''

McGovern, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, said

he was surprised to learn about the White House proposal

given Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's testimony before

the committee last week saying he did not favor any major

changes to the food stamps program.

``It's been a very important, effective Program,'' Perdue

said, according to a recording of the hearing. ``As far as

I'm concerned we have no proposed changes. You don't try to

fix things that aren't broken.''

The Trump administration is advocating other ``fixes'' to

the safety net, as well. The budget will also propose

requiring people to have a Social Security number to collect

tax credits. Mulvaney said it is unfair that taxpayers

support immigrants working illegally in this country.

``How do I go to somebody who pays their taxes and say,

'Look, I want you to give this earned income tax credit to

somebody who is working here illegally? That's not

defensible,'' Mulvaney said.

Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, said he also hopes

Trump will prioritize work requirements for those receiving

housing subsidies. Mulvaney did not address that on Monday.

Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing

Coalition, said the majority of Americans receiving housing

subsidies are elderly, disabled or already include someone

who works. Of the remaining households, nearly half include a

preschool child or an older child or adult with a disability

who needs the supervision of a caregiver.

Establishing work requirements for the remaining six

percent of households who are `work able' but not employed

would require state and local housing agencies already facing

funding shortfalls to establish cumbersome monitoring and

enforcement systems for a very narrow segment of rental

assistance recipients, she said.

``This is neither cost effective nor a solution to the very

real issue of poverty impacting millions of families living

in subsidized housing or in need,'' Yentel said in a

statement to the Post.

Correction: This story incorrectly stated the average

annual income for SNAP participants in Kansas who had lost

and then found jobs was $5,562. That figure applied to all

SNAP participants who had lost the benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia suggests that we all take a mission trip around the world to see hunger and see how lucky we are here in the United States.

Let me tell the gentleman, you don't have to go halfway around the world to see hunger. I can take you halfway down the block, and you can see hunger right here in our Nation's capital and in every congressional district in this country.

There are over 41 million Americans who are hungry or food-insecure in this country. We are the richest country in the history of the world. We all should be ashamed. We ought to do something about it, and this farm bill makes hunger worse.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to think of a response to the gentleman from Georgia, who is trying to defend the process in the Agriculture Committee as that somehow, with this bipartisan process, Democrats didn't want to participate.

But you know what? It is just not worth it. We have been explaining it over and over and over again. This process is indefensible. It really makes a mockery of the Agriculture Committee, and it makes a mockery of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia: Do you have any speakers over there or anybody who wants to talk about this bill? Because we have a ton, and we just want to----

It is an inquiry. I don't want to take it on my time.

As long as it doesn't come out of my time.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, but it is not coming out of my time.

Reclaiming my time, I am just taking note of all of the excitement on your side of the aisle on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

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

The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) talked about how we are literally taking the food away from children. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, there should be no mistake: This bill is going to hurt kids.

First, it cuts 1 million people off of benefits through categorical eligibility challenges alone. These people are working families with kids. And once these kids lose their SNAP benefits, CBO, the nonpartisan group of experts that we rely on, expects 265,000 children will lose access to free school meals.

I ask my colleagues: Is that what you want out of a farm bill? We can do so much better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to give credit where credit is due. This majority can't balance a budget; they can't even pass a budget. They can't fund the government without first shutting it down. They are so busy cozying up to the big banks and passing tax cuts for the wealthy that they ignore virtually every major issue facing our Nation. Right now as we speak, this Republican majority is trying to jam through a farm bill that won't even help most farmers.

But the one thing this Republican majority is incredibly good at, and the one thing that they do with ruthless efficiency is stick it to poor people. This majority is Robin Hood in reverse. They are master legislators for the megawealthy. They might want this Chamber to look out solely for those at the top, giving them more tax breaks, making it easier for them to pollute our planet and systematically attacking the safeguards we put in place to stop another financial collapse, but while they work with unflagging, unshakeable, and dogged determination to give a helping hand to the fat cats, they tell those struggling to get by and those begging for an opportunity and a living wage that they should just work harder.

Never mind that they didn't grow up in nice neighborhoods or in a stable home with good nutrition and a quality education. Maybe they started out in life having to play catchup. Maybe they need just a little help from the Government to make the American Dream a reality in their life. Or maybe they were born with advantages but have fallen on hard times and they need a little bit of help.

I am standing here today--Democrats are standing here today--giving a voice to our workers, the middle class, and those trying to break into the middle class. If my Republican friends actually listened to their voices, they would join us and vote against this monstrosity of a bill that attacks working American citizens and takes lunch money away from children.

It is disgusting, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and I urge all of you--no, I plead with all of you--to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I grew up in a family where helping those who were struggling was the right thing to do, the decent thing to do. Please send this bill back to committee. Surely we can do better. Let's demonstrate to the American people that we are here to help, that we care, and that we are decent.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia commented that we are all so emotional on this side of the aisle when we are debating this issue. You are damn right we are. We are emotional. We are angry. We are frustrated because people are going to be hurt.

Mr. Speaker, if you have ever met a hungry child, it should break your heart, and there are millions and millions in this country who are hungry. We are the greatest country in the history of the world and the richest country in the history of the world, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens are food insecure or hungry.

Why isn't that a priority? Why isn't that a bigger priority than another tax cut for a big corporation? I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deep down inside care about those who suffer in this country. Here is an opportunity to prove it. Let's do a farm bill that actually doesn't make hunger worse in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am not even asking you to eliminate hunger, although I wish that were a priority. I am just saying: don't make it worse. This bill will throw millions of people off of a food benefit, and millions of children will be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, they are not just people who aren't working. You know better than that. Many of these people are working families, people who are working hard but can't make ends meet. You are taking away a food benefit. What is wrong with this institution? We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this rule, and vote ``no'' on this 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think that the gentlewoman from Illinois speaks on behalf of a lot of Members in this Chamber. Nobody wants to see a trade war. Nobody is advantaged by a trade war.

I think so many of the provisions that are in this underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2, are designed to create more stability for farm families.

The gentlewoman is absolutely right when she references the instability trade war conversations create. So much more important, then, that we come together now to provide that safety net and that stability that is included here in H.R. 2.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's encouragement that we get to the other end of these trade negotiations, and I do believe that is something that we all share.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just spoke about one of the amendments that is going to be offered today. In total, there are 51 different amendments that have been made in order both in the rule that we did yesterday and this rule that we hope that our colleagues will support today, 51 different amendments proffered by Members of this Chamber to try to make this bill better. If we pass this rule today, we will be able to move to the underlying bill for consideration of those amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the gentleman from Florida in his commitment to public service. He is a relatively new Member to this Chamber, but he has been fighting for his constituents since he arrived, and I admire him for that.

There are lot of men and women in this Chamber who fit that bill, Mr. Speaker. I wish we spent more time celebrating those good public servants among us.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), a gentleman who fits exactly that mold. The gentleman from Maine has come time and time again to this floor, to committees, every single opportunity he has, to build bipartisan support, to work together with his colleagues, to work not just on behalf of the citizens of Maine, but on behalf of all Americans. He really is a model for energy and partnership on something that everyone in this Chamber would agree on.

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

The farm bill is a little different this year than what we have seen in years past. We would ordinarily have more bipartisan support here on the floor. We got sideways on a couple of issues early on in the process, but the arguments that we are hearing aren't different than the arguments we traditionally hear in a farm bill, as if we are pitting those families in need of food against those families who produce the food. We are not.

This bill is H.R. 2 for a reason, Mr. Speaker. A lot of folks don't understand how bill numbers get handed out in this institution. They get handed out by order of priority.

H.R. 1 was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill has brought unemployment down to the lowest levels in my lifetime and economic growth to the highest levels we have seen in decades.

H.R. 2 is the farm bill, because if you want to know who benefits from American farm policy, it is anybody who eats--anybody who eats.

I tell folks, Mr. Speaker, we don't need to give every child a laptop. We need to send every child on a mission trip around the globe to see how other families live, to see how other countries do it. We are so blessed in this country, and we take it for granted oftentimes.

For example, I can put up charts about the distribution of farm policy until the cows come home, but the largest 15 percent of farms in this country produce almost 90 percent of all the food.

I will say that again. Those folks who are doing it bigger and better than anybody else, those 15 percent of farmers produce almost 90 percent of American food. And I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to lose those 15 percent of farmers.

What keeps food in this country available and affordable is a consistent farm policy, which is why, time and time again, Republicans and Democrats come together from across rural America to try to provide certainty to American agriculture.

It is the largest part of the Georgia economy, Mr. Speaker: agriculture. That is true of so many districts, so many States across this land.

This ought to be a partnership. It is not today, and I regret that. We are going to have opportunities to make that change going forward, but just understand, for folks who are here seeing this debate for the very first time, go back and see the farm bill debate from 5 years ago. You will see the same accusations. You will see the same recriminations. You will see the same fear and scare tactics used. Then you will see a huge bipartisan vote because this bill is so important to so many Americans.

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

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

My colleague has gone through some really challenging times in her community, and this Chamber has stood with her in those times. She has been a great advocate for her community in the face of some really extraordinary disasters.

We can make accusations on this floor all we like, but we could also spend some time bragging about those things that bring us together. There are already disaster provisions in law--disaster provisions that provide specifically disaster SNAP, for example, when communities are so hard-hit. We do have these conversations, we do have these concerns for one another and our communities, and we do work together to address those concerns.

We are not always successful, Mr. Speaker, but I promise you we are less successful when we don't work together than when we do.

My understanding--I don't sit on the Agriculture Committee, but my friends across the aisle do--is that not a single Democratic amendment was offered in committee.

It is my understanding--and, again, I don't sit on the committee. I don't mind being corrected. I won't be embarrassed at all to have the Record corrected. But my understanding is there were 5 hours of markup in the Agriculture Committee, and not one idea for improving the bill was offered.

Now, that is a legitimate, strategic position to take if folks want to take it, Mr. Speaker. I just don't understand it as someone who wants to get the job done and make a difference in a collaborative way on behalf of the American people.

This bill is getting better every single day. It has gotten better through every conversation. As you heard my friend from Washington say in his opening statement, so many farmers with real-world experience-- we heard yesterday from Members who have real-world labor and workforce development experience. This bill is getting better every time.

If we support the rule that we are discussing at this time, Mr. Speaker, it will make 31 additional amendments in order so that we can improve the bill even further.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to answer the inquiry, or we could just leave it as an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, we do have additional speakers remaining, and, of course, if we make this rule in

order, if we pass this rule, we will have 31 different amendments and speakers coming down on each one of those as well.

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

Georgia is a rural State, like so many jurisdictions represented in this Chamber. Sometimes you have a big city in one part of the State and the rest of the State is rural. The conversations we have in Georgia are often not Republicans against Democrats politically; it is Atlanta against the rest of the State politically.

Folks often don't connect the dots between the food that they are buying on the shelf at Kroger being directly related to whether or not farmers are producing that food in the field.

We have made huge strides in terms of trying to bring more fresh produce not just into our school systems but into our local farmers markets, huge strides into making sure that electronic benefits aren't just able to be used at the local convenience store but are able to be used in farmers markets so that higher quality produce can end up on families' tables.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we can find disagreement in every bill that comes to the floor, but we can also find progress. There is a lot of progress in this bill. We will support this rule, we will get to the underlying bill, and we will spend the rest of the day discussing exactly that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we feel very passionately about issues on this floor. I want to give my colleague from Alabama an opportunity to retract the accusation that this is a mean-spirited and cruel bill. I know the men and women who serve on the Agriculture Committee, and they don't have a mean-spirited or cruel bone in their body. They care about farmers, and they care about families.

We can argue about whether or not if you are a working aged, able- bodied, childless man in this country whether or not we ought to try to get you a job while you are collecting Federal benefits. We can talk about that. I don't

think that is mean-spirited at all. I don't think that is cruel at all. I think that is exactly what we ought to be doing to lift families up out of poverty.

But I would say to my colleagues with their passion--which I know is heartfelt--feeding hungry children is a shared priority, and we see that every single day in the bills that are passed here; and we do damage to this institution and we do damage to the very honest and needed debates we have in this Chamber when we characterize one another in ways that we know are not accurate.

I know the men and women on the Agriculture Committee. I know why they chose to serve on that committee. I believe in the work they are doing. I regret that we are having this disagreement today, but we don't need to question each other's motives or integrity in order to make this debate of value.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who is one of my classmates in the class of 2011. We were once Budget Committee mates together back in the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan. He actually spent a good deal of his time just the other day in a Budget Committee hearing trying to help get us some bipartisan solutions.

He got grilled by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Everybody wanted their ounce of Michigan flesh in that day. But at the end of that conversation--and I don't say this flippantly--I felt more optimistic about our coming together and doing some very difficult infrastructure investments in this country than I did when I walked into that room.

Those things don't happen without people investing the kind of time and energy that Representative Kildee has invested over his career. I want to tell the gentleman how much I appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend I am prepared to close when he is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friends on the Agriculture Committee for the work they did on this bill. It is not easy to do big pieces of legislation. We do a farm bill every 5 years. It is always a hard thing to do, and my friends on the Agriculture Committee have taken the slings and arrows. You have heard the accusations that have been made just here on the floor today.

The unemployment rate in this country, Mr. Speaker, is as low as it has ever been in my lifetime, and the number of childless, working-age men who are sitting it out is as high as it has ever been in my lifetime.

We can argue about how to care about people more, we can argue about how to love people more, but I will tell you, helping someone to find a job matters.

Historically, Mr. Speaker, it is one of those things we agree on. For whatever reason, we have made it the topic of something we are going to pretend to disagree on today.

There are more jobs available in this country than ever before. I think we owe it to families that haven't been able to connect themselves with that job market to help them to do better.

Mr. Speaker, so often, we talk about all the lawyers in Congress, all the lawyers who are bureaucrats, all the folks who are working on policy that they just don't understand. I want to close with where my colleague from Washington State began. Of course, he is a former agriculture commissioner from Washington State. He said this.

He said he is not the only farmer in this House. There are 20 farmers, ranchers, and producers serving here in the people's House: an almond farmer from central California, a blueberry farmer from Maine, a rancher from South Dakota, a cattleman from Kentucky, a rice farmer from Minnesota, and a hops farmer from the Yakima Valley in Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, this body really does reflect working Americans, folks out there trying to be the breadbasket to the world, trying to put fresh produce on the shelves for every American family to benefit from. This bill continues our commitment to serving the hungry, and it continues our commitment to being the finest agricultural production nation that this planet has ever seen.

Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Let's consider some amendments to make this bill even better, and then let's send it to the Senate and give the American people a bill they can be proud of.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in extreme opposition to Ms. Foxx's amendment.

She singles out sugar, cuts its program back to where it was 33 years ago, and denigrates the hardworking men and women who are farmers. Those processors she mentioned are co-op-owned; they are owned by those hardworking farmers. There is no inactivity with respect to the sugar industry. She couldn't be more wrong or more disrespectful of them.

Her amendment would not save the taxpayer one dime. Fifteen out of the last 16 years, the sugar program has worked. The reason we have not changed it over all those years is because it does work. If we were to move it under title I to treat it exactly the way the other commodities are treated, it would cost billions of taxpayer dollars. We don't want that, and the sugar industry is not asking for that.

This amendment will not save the consumer one penny. These large sugar users, of whom I am a great customer, buy by the carload. When the price of sugar dropped to half of what it should have been in 2013 as a result of Mexico cheating on the trade deal, they did not share that profit with anybody.

Quite frankly, just to put it succinctly, if sugar was such a driving cost in the cost of all production and the cost to all the jobs that the gentlewoman mentioned, my diet soda would cost dramatically less than a sugar soda. They don't. They cost exactly the same. They still give this product away in restaurants.

So, as we go about this issue, this is about protecting American jobs and American hardworking farmers from unfair, undue competition from around the world.

We don't let other products come into this country at below the cost of production. We do it when we fight steel. We had a recent fight against Turkey over the imports of steel because it was below the cost of production. We would protect all other products that way. We just simply leave this one in place because it works year-in and year-out, except for the 1 year Mexico cheated. They admitted they cheated on the program, and that is when it cost the American taxpayers money.

So it doesn't cost, it doesn't save taxpayer money, and it doesn't save consumers money. It is simply a windfall of some amount to the sugar buyers and users.

I don't have a grudge against them at all. Like I said, I eat and drink their products. I am trying to defend American farmers from products being produced overseas by slave labor in some instances, child labor in other instances, standards under which we don't produce. It is dumped into these markets because those governments, unlike ours, have a direct payment to their farmers and producers to keep them in business.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is the ranking member of the powerful Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I point out that over half of all U.S. sugar processing operations in the United States since 1980 have closed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would also point out the additional closed plants and jobs lost in the sugar growing industry.

U.S.- and foreign-sweetened product manufacturers have announced 100 plant openings, acquisitions, or expansions within the United States over that same timeframe.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that that hidden tax that my colleagues are talking about will not be shared with the consumers. It has never been shared with the price of sugar. It goes down. It will simply shift those profits into multinational corporations that we are defending by supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. is the third largest importer of sugar in the world, and virtually all of that comes in duty free.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't disagree more.

The savings that are touted by the folks who are in favor of this amendment will not be shared with consumers. They will be kept by these multinational corporations and, yes, the small sugar users across this country. So prices will not go down.

There are no tax dollars involved, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, except for 1 year out of 16, because this program worked. This program was not changed in 2014 because it works. It doesn't cost the taxpayers money, sugar prices are not distorted, and the manufacturers will not be able to support the one instance where they have lowered the cost of their product when sugar prices did in fact drop as a result of the unfair, unlevel playing field, unlevel competition around this world.

If we could talk the rest of the world into going to a free market, to a level playing field, then I would agree completely with my colleagues who support this amendment.

We are not there. We are not even headed there. We need to defeat this amendment, protect those hardworking farmers out there across this country. Say ``no'' to Foxx.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2 includes a substantive, enforceable supportive work requirement for work-capable individuals 18 to 59. Waivers and exemptions were tightened to assure little abuse in a system currently rife with loopholes and gimmicks.

We have also heard from our conservative stakeholders that workfare is an important tool for EP participants. Based on their feedback and explicit examples of where this has been implemented correctly, this amendment includes establishment of that.

It is simply good policy to send unexpended funds back to the Treasury. This amendment does that.

Our colleagues on the other side said we did not count veteran- specific workforce development programs as a part of H.R. 2. Well, in addition to the provisions of H.R. 2 that has permitted State-based veteran workforce programs to count toward the work requirement, this amendment expands to include programs for veterans run by the Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, that would have been a terrific amendment for my colleagues to have offered in committee or on this floor, and we would have accepted it. They chose to stay on the sidelines.

I have a great food bank in my district, West Texas Food Bank. Its chief executive related how important it was to provide a 1-year certification period for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program for seniors, a program currently serving seniors. This makes sense and allows seniors easier access to this important program.

It is engagements like this that is what our process is all about, and we have amended our bill through this manager's amendment to include those.

Mr. Chair, we also have changes in here that strengthen our framework for coordinating between USDA on FCA, on important operations, broadband work that is going on across jurisdictions. We want those two agencies to work together to better utilize the funding to make sure that rural America gets that broadband support that we really need. That is included in here as well.

It also allows that communities will have a better opportunity to work for themselves rather than fighting the current bureaucracy here in Washington, D.C.

This amendment also includes a variety of technical amendments, corrections to the bill, that you would normally have in a manager's amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chair, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chair, I am ready to close.

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman just previously mentioned the increase in fruits and vegetables being eaten by children in school. I would point out that our bill includes $1.2 billion in incentives to help moms and dads out there who are on SNAP to buy fruits and vegetables and dairy to get a bigger bang for their buck and thereby hopefully increasing those commodities.

Mr. Chair, we have a good bill here, the base bill. This simply makes it better. With that, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the former chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we have got a clear-cut choice: you either want American producers to produce American food or you don't. That is what this is simply about.

When I think about the farm bill, you can love it or hate the safety net we have in place, but it works--as the chairman said, the lowest cost price food in the developed world.

Here is why that is important. Half of America works paycheck to paycheck. Their food budget is where they flex. Their rent doesn't change. Their house payment doesn't change. Their car payment doesn't change. But if something comes up in the middle of the month, it is coming out of that food budget.

I don't want to make that mom's job any tougher than it already is by raising the cost of food arbitrarily, capriciously, by ignoring the vast amount of competition around this world that is fundamentally unfair.

If we could go to that utopia that my friend from California would like to get us to, fantastic, but we can't do that. They barely could do it in New Zealand, for goodness' sake. We could not do that against the rest of the world.

I would argue that U.S. production is a bit more complicated than whatever New Zealand might or might not be doing. We have got to compete in a world global market against foreign treasuries that are spending stunningly more money than we are.

China spent $100 billion on three products in 1 year to subsidize their products. Now, did that send the wrong signal to those folks? Yes, it did. We farmers and our rice farmers and our other producers have to compete against the prices that are depressed like that.

We can't go against the rest of the world. If the rest of the world will go to a level playing field, I have got not one farmer out there who would say: No, no, no, we want to keep it in place. They want to compete in the cash market. That is where they want to make their money. This amendment would strip them of the ability to do that. We would go to foreign-imported food coming at us with standards that are not remotely close to ours, labor that is not closely protected the way ours is.

Let's defeat this McClintock amendment, show the American farmer and rancher out there, who works as hard as anybody in this world, who thinks a 20-hour workweek is something they do in their second or third job in order to keep the farm going, let's show them that we support them. Let's show them that we have got their back.

A ``yes'' vote for McClintock says: Never mind, we don't care about you. A ``no'' vote on McClintock says exactly the message we want to send, and I am hopeful this is a stunningly large vote so that American producers out there, who are some of the hardest working, best people on the face of the Earth, can understand that this Congress understands the unfair foreign competition that they are competing with.

Vote ``no'' on McClintock.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing up this important issue.

I agree with the gentleman from Alabama that our farmers and ranchers should not be competing with the Federal Government for viable cropland. H.R. 2 makes many changes to the CRP program, such as capping the rental rate payment to 80 percent of the county average and stepping this percentage down for subsequent reenrollments of the same tract.

I understand, however, the gentleman's concerns with the increase in enrolled acres, and I commit to working with the gentleman and his staff on this issue during the coming conference report, should we get there.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faso has my commitment to work with him to address the Farm Bureau's concerns to get them to the point that they are okay with this. I support the gentleman's amendment under those terms.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate, and the underlying bill, regarding H.R.2, the so- called ``Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018,'' the House Republicans' failed attempt to produce a Farm Bill that is good for America.

A more fitting name for this terrible and bitter legislative pill would be the ``Let Poor Families and Children Starve so Billionaires Can Get Fatter Act.''

Going back to 1962, beginning with Senators Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, and George McGovern, Farm Bills have always attracted bipartisan support and engendered an enduring alliance between urban and rural legislators in the common cause of ensuring livable incomes for farm families and an affordable and nutritious food supply.

With this purely partisan bill, House Republicans have turned their back on this 56 year heritage.

Mr. Speaker, St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian, said: ``Without justice, what else is the state but a gang of robbers?''

There is no justice in this Farm Bill, but there is harm--lots of it--inflicted on the most vulnerable, so much so that many people are saying that the House Republican majority has produced a bill that is worthy of a gang of robbers.

I oppose this rule and underlying legislation for several reasons but most of all because of its abject cruelty to American's most vulnerable families and children.

H.R. 2 slashes $23 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (``SNAP''), a lifeline depended upon by millions of families and children to provide for their daily nutrition needs.

But who among us can say they are truly surprised?

Since taking office sixteen months ago, the President has made abundantly clear his indifference to the most vulnerable citizens in society.

And he has been aided in his endeavors by a feckless House Republican majority.

The President began his presidency with a concerted and determined push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a law which has helped over 17 million individuals gain health insurance; reduced the uninsured rate by 40 percent and, provided 89 percent of Americans with the security and peace of mind that comes with access to affordable quality healthcare.

When that effort failed, the President next turned his efforts to passing the massive Trump-GOP Tax Scam, which slashed taxes for the top one percent and multi-national corporations, but the negative consequences of which the Trump-GOP Tax Scam have been devastating for the average American.

The GOP Tax Scam has now been revealed not to generate broad-based economic growth but instead to create annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be honest about creating an environment where individuals have an opportunity to emerge from poverty conditions, there must be access to nutritious food.

SNAP is a critical component to providing food security to lower- income Americans.

SNAP sets children up for success.

Children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school, helping to break the cycle of poverty and build a stronger economy in the long term.

SNAP is temporary.

The average family spends just ten months on SNAP, receiving assistance only during difficult times.

(SNAP is critical for poor and working families.

Most participate in SNAP when they are between jobs.

Among households with at least one working-age non-disabled adult roughly 8o percent of SNAP households work in the year before or the year after receiving SNAP.

Close to two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or disabled.

The vast majority of those who are required to work, do work.

The average per person benefit is $132 per month, or about$1.60 per meal.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to become law, it would cut $23 billion from SNAP and would kick one million households off the program.

That means 83,000 Texas families would see their benefits cut, impacting more than 96,000 individuals.

In Texas, over half of all SNAP beneficiaries live below the poverty line so cutting access to SNAP would be devastating.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we not increase food security for the least vulnerable among us.

If our children are not adequately and safely housed, they are not protected from life's crueler elements.

If they are not fed, they lack nourishment and preparation for school and all its challenges.

Mothers know this and their children know this.

Everyone knows this, with the apparent exception of the President and House Republicans.

The House Republicans' eagerness to sacrifice poor and working families and children by cutting SNAP and other food assistance programs for up to 23 million people by $23 billion is an accurate reflection of their priorities and values, which favor tax cuts for multinational corporation and the top 1 percent at the expense of the poor and working class and those striving to enter the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, there are other major insults, injuries, and cruelties inflicted on working families by this callous legislation.

This so-called Farm Bill changes SNAP from a food program to a work program by imposing new draconian work requirements on adult SNAP participants between 18 and 59 years old, requiring documentation showing 20 hours per week of work or participation in a job training program.

The changes include severe, harsh penalties if the paperwork is not filed on time, ignoring the reality of low-wage work, which is plagued by unstable, uncertain work schedules, unpredictable hours, and few benefits like paid sick or family leave.

This mean-spirited legislation threatens free school meals for 265,000 children and SNAP eligibility for 400,000 households by eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which allows states flexibility to link their social service programs to SNAP.

The bill also severs the connection between SNAP and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps families pay their energy utilities, adversely impacting working families and people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, this wretched legislation is an equal-opportunity catastrophe because it also inflicts serious damage on farm families and rural America at a time of great challenge and economic uncertainty.

Farm prices are plummeting amid the self-inflicted damage of President Trump's tariffs yet this bill instead of providing relief exacerbates the economic and social pain in rural America by killing good-paying rural jobs, cutting a gaping hole in the critical farmer safety net and shifting opportunity away from America's small towns with cuts to vital rural development, sustainable conservation, and energy initiatives.

Inexplicably, H.R. 2 fails to address the 52 percent decline in farm income and eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, the nation's largest working lands conservation program, by merging it with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, resulting in $800 million less for investments in preserving working lands and sustainable farm practices.

The legislation hurts rural families in several additional ways by:

Failing to increase funding for USDA's trade assistance programs that help farmers stay globally competitive through initiatives that help to develop and expand their business in overseas markets;

Abolishing the entire Energy Title, resulting in lost investments in jobs of the future in renewable energy and biofuels;

Adding onerous fees to rural development guaranteed loans;

Curtailing broadband assistance in remote areas by adding administrative burdens and fails to boost USDA's telemedicine initiatives that help combat opioid abuse in rural America;

Underfunding the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which provides funding to organizations that educate, mentor and provide technical assistance for new and veteran farmers; and

Betraying the next generation of farm and food leaders by failing to provide mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grant institutions.

This so-called Farm Bill is so bad in so many ways to so many people that it is little wonder that it is strongly opposed by leading organizations and associations from all sides of the political spectrum, including: National Farmers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Environmental Working Group, National Young Farmers Coalition, Union of Concerned Scientists, Agriculture Energy Coalition, American Biogas Association, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Psychological Association, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Every Child Matters, Families USA, Feeding America, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center, Hispanic Federation, Lutheran Services in America, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Meals on Wheels America, MomsRising, NAACP, National Consumers League, National Council on Aging, National Employment Law Project, National PTA, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NOW, Partnership for America's Children, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, SEIU, Share Our Strength, UnidosUS, YWCA USA, Heritage Foundation, R Street Institute, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to reject the rule and this cruel, heartless legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

An amendment to H. Res. 900 offered by Mr. McGovern

On p. 2, line 2, insert ``The amendment specified in

section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted

in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.'' after

``purposes.''

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

`Add at the end the following:

Subtitle H Protections From Retaliatory Tariffs

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 900 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 900, providing for further consideration of a very important piece of legislation for America's farmers and ranchers: H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, commonly referred to as the farm bill. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2 under a structured rule, allowing for consideration of 31 amendments that were offered.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I traveled to every county in my district for one reason: to listen, to hear, and to get the input and the concerns from farmers, ranchers and producers across central Washington State. I traveled to Pateros, where my constituents discussed the vital need for strengthening market access and opening new sources for exporting across the globe.

I visited with farmers from East Wenatchee in Douglas County who discussed the importance of commodity sourcing and stressed the need for stronger education for the public about farming and where the food that lands on our tables comes from.

I heard from constituents in Prosser and Benton and Yakima Counties who stressed the importance of agricultural research from producers in Quincy, who shared their personal stories of the impacts of crop insurance on their livelihoods, and from farmers in Othello who raised concerns regarding regulatory burdens on the agricultural community.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to say that this farm bill makes great strides in addressing these challenges that face America's farmers. The rule we bring before the House provides for further consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, a bill that is critically important to my district in central Washington and to rural districts just like it across the country.

As a farmer myself and as a former State agricultural director, I know how important these farm policies are when it comes to our agricultural economy. This farm bill strengthens the farm safety net to help America's farmers and ranchers compete.

After 5 years of depressed prices, and a 52 percent drop in farm income, our farmers need us--they need Congress--to reauthorize these important programs.

Mr. Speaker, while American farmers have faced these depressed prices and severe drops in farm income, we, luckily, have a robust safety net in place. Due to the previous 2014 farm bill, our agriculture community was able to hold on and continue to provide American consumers with food in our grocery stores, in our schools, and in our food banks.

It is incumbent upon us to ensure these policies continue. We must pass this farm bill and ensure a steady food supply will be on the shelves and in our markets for the years to come.

The underlying legislation includes the creation of a new international market program, which I would argue is more important today than ever before. Programs within it, including the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, are incredibly important to producers seeking to maintain and expand their export markets for U.S. agricultural products and commodities. The Market Access Program, on its own, is a net positive program, which for every $1 spent, $28 is returned to the American economy.

I know these critical trade and export resources are at the top of the minds of American farmers and producers across the country, and we must continue to ensure their availability and access for the agricultural industry.

This bill also maintains and strengthens the Nation's nutrition programs to assist those who struggle to put food on the table, while providing critical training to help people attain the skills necessary to gain good-paying jobs, financial self-sufficiency, and better futures for themselves and their families. It supports the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, without any cuts in funding. Instead, this bill adds further funding and empowers States with the flexibility on how to best administer their respective programs.

The State of Washington has done innovative work in their administration of SNAP through the BFET and the RISE programs to help some of the most vulnerable populations, and I am pleased that this farm bill will allow these programs to continue if the State so chooses.

This legislation contains employment and education provisions for those who need a hand up due to falling on hard times.

Mr. Speaker, the farm bill contains comprehensive approaches to farm policy, nutrition, trade, conservation, crop insurance, regulatory reform, rural development, animal health, specialty and organic crops, and provisions to help beginning farmers and ranchers.

This rule provides for further consideration of amendments offered by our colleagues in the House on a great variety of these issues. I look forward to listening to the robust debate on potential provisions to strengthen this legislation.

As this is the first farm bill I have had the opportunity to engage in since being in Congress, I welcome input from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and from every perspective. We must continue to bring forward solutions for America's farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and families.

Mr. Speaker, this body, the people's House, is made up of many walks of life. We have physicians. We have attorneys. We have ordained ministers. We have engineers, school administrators, former State and local government officials, scientists, and law enforcement officials. Today, I am proud to come before you as a farmer. I am not the only one.

There are maybe about 20 farmers, ranchers, and producers in the House, in the people's House. Among us are an almond farmer from central California, a blueberry farmer from the State of Maine, a rancher from South Dakota, a cattleman from Kentucky, a rice farmer from Minnesota, and, yes, a proud hops farmer from the Yakima Valley from the State of Washington.

I am privileged to come before you in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, 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 of those who depend on them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway, and I have worked together on many issues, and I know that he recognizes that the trade promotion programs that I referenced in my opening remarks are vital to our agricultural economy.

For decades, USDA export development programs like MAP have helped American farmers create, expand, and maintain access to foreign markets. Throughout their history, this successful public-private partnership has cultivated hundreds of billions of dollars in exports and created millions of American jobs both in the agricultural sector and in support industries, as well as the program brings a return to the United States economy.

In the findings of the underlying bill, it states: ``United States export development programs significantly increase demand for United States agricultural products . . . generating a return of $28 in added export revenue for each invested program dollar.''

Additionally: `` . . . our global competitors provide substantially more public support for export promotion than is provided to United States agricultural exporters.''

We are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the rest of the world when it comes to agricultural trade.

Mr. Speaker, without these private contributions and the private sector's resolve to support our export programs, it is very likely that the U.S. would not be the net agricultural exporter of the highest quality products that we are today. I think it is time that we look at our export promotion programs and take a serious look if we want to continue our exporting success.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill to grow the investment in the MAP and FMD programs and I also offered an amendment that would have made a smaller investment in the MAP and FMD programs, and while we are not considering those amendments today, I am grateful that Chairman Conaway has agreed to come and engage in this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Conaway for his commitment to continue working on this important issue, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.