Black Hills National Cemetery Boundary Expansion Act

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

Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules Committee may not waive the point of order prescribed by section 425 of that same act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are the Republicans doing this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consortium for Citizens

With Disabilities,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2018.

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

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi, The undersigned

members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities

(CCD) urge you to continue the longstanding bipartisan

commitment to protect and strengthen the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by rejecting proposals to

restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, cap or reduce funding,

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

CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations

working together to advocate for federal public policy that

ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment,

integration and inclusion of children and adults with

disabilities in all aspects of society.

In the United States, all too often food insecurity and

disability go together. Families that include people with

disabilities are two to three times more likely to experience

food insecurity than families that have no members with

disabilities. Similarly, people experiencing food insecurity

have increased likelihood of chronic illness and disability.

SNAP is vitally important for people with disabilities and

their families. By increasing access to adequate, nutritious

food SNAP plays a key role in reducing hunger and helping

people with disabilities to maximize their health and

participate in their communities.

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

estimated 11 million people with disabilities of all ages

received SNAP, representing roughly one in four SNAP

participants.

Roughly 4.4 million households with non-elderly adults with

disabilities received SNAP in 2016.

Non-elderly adults with disabilities who receive SNAP have

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

2016.

SNAP benefits are extremely modest, averaging $187 per

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

just $6 per day.

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

people with disabilities and their families by cutting off

essential food assistance. Federal law currently limits SNAP

eligibility for adults between the ages of 18 to 49 without

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

unless they can engage in work or job training activities at

least half time, or qualify for an exemption. These

provisions cut off food assistance at a time when people need

it most and do not result in increased employment and

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

lost SNAP in 2016 due to this time limit.

Many people with disabilities are already hurt by SNAP time

limits, despite existing exemptions for people who receive

governmental or private benefits on the basis of a disability

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

mentally unfit for employment.''

For example, in a study of SNAP participants subject to

time limits referred to participate in work activities in

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

mental limitation''.

Cutting off food assistance from SNAP would only make it

harder for people to work and increase their economic self-

sufficiency. We strongly oppose any action that would cut off

or reduce SNAP benefits, narrow eligibility, or force more

people to navigate harsh and unnecessary program rules,

including people with disabilities and their families.

In particular, we are concerned that the Farm Bill advanced

by the House Committee on Agriculture on April 18, 2018

includes a number of provisions that would harm people with

disabilities and their families. Small increases in the

proposed bill are insufficient to make up for significant

benefit reductions.

New work requirements with highly punitive rules would cut

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

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

simple to assert that ``people with disabilities will be

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

policy process is complicated, expensive, and fundamentally

flawed. Many people with disabilities receive SNAP, but do

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

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

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

have difficulty obtaining the necessary records or

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

obligation to ensure that people with disabilities have

access to the full array of services they might need to

work--such as accessible transportation, supported

employment, and personal care aide services. People with

disabilities often want to work, but need additional supports

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

discrimination and misconceptions about their ability to

work.

Underfunded work programs would be woefully inadequate to

meet training needs. Proposed new investments in SNAP

employment and training programs--funded in large part by

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

This amount would be grossly insufficient to provide adequate

employment services for people subject to proposed new work

requirements, including jobseekers with disabilities.

New reporting requirements would create major hurdles to

benefits. Proposed new reporting requirements related to

eligibility, employment and training, and time limits would

be extremely difficult for many people with disabilities to

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

simplification measure and instead requiring people to share

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

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

for SNAP participants and states.

If Congress wishes to explore meaningful opportunities for

SNAP participants to increase self-sufficiency through

employment, we recommend awaiting the results of the

Employment & Training pilot projects authorized under the

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

awarded pilot grants in 2015, all 10 state programs are

operational, and evaluation activities will operate through

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

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

It will be important for USDA and the evaluators to carefully

explore the experiences and outcomes of people with

disabilities and their families in these pilot programs.

Congress should await the final pilot evaluations before

considering any changes in these areas.

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

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

limiting access, reducing benefits, or creating

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

Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 as approved by the

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

bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect SNAP as part of

the Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

CCD members:

ACCSES, Allies for Independence, American Association of

People with Disabilities, American Association on Health and

Disability, American Diabetes Association, American

Foundation for the Blind, American Network of Community

Options and Resources (ANCOR), American Psychological

Association, Association of University Centers on

Disabilities (AUCD), Autism Society, Autistic Self Advocacy

Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Brain Injury

Association of America, Center for Public Representation,

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Community Legal Services

of Philadelphia, Council of Administrators of Special

Education, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund,

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional

Children (DEC), Easterseals.

Epilepsy Foundation, Institute for Educational Leadership,

The Jewish Federations of North America, Justice in Aging,

Lutheran Services in America Disability Network, National

Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils

on Developmental Disabilities, National Association of State

Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), National Association

of State

Head Injury Administrators, National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare, National Disability Institute,

National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome

Congress, National Organization of Social Security Claimants'

Representatives (NOSSCR), School Social Work Association of

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

United Spinal Association.

Joined by:

Lakeshore Foundation.

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

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

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

[From No Kid Hungry, May 15, 2018]

Congress Must Vote No on Farm Bill

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

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

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

from Share Our Strength's Senior Vice President Lisa Davis

about the harmful impact the bill would have on struggling

families in America. Share Our Strength officially opposes

the bill.

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

Farm Bill. On balance, this bill will ultimately increase

poverty and hunger in the United States and Share Our

Strength cannot support it.

Thirteen million children today are growing up in families

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

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

water heater away from hunger. Consider:

A study by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of

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

expense.

Another study from the National Center for Children in

Poverty shows that nearly half of all children in the United

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

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

poverty.

And in another survey recently conducted on behalf of No

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

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

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

These are families trying to do their best to survive.

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

mom in California, worried about whether to pay the

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

grandmother trying to raise her grandkids in Appalachia. And

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

support his son in Central Pennsylvania.

And while this legislation includes some needed

improvements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

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

inflation, these changes are significantly outweighed by

harmful ones, such as eliminating Broad Based Categorical

Eligibility (BBCE) and increasing administrative burdens on

states and imposing penalties on adults who are unable to

comply with the expanded work requirements in a given month.

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

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

Bill will increase employment. It imposes harsh penalties on

beneficiaries who drop below the required number of hours in

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

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

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

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

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

This is all counterintuitive. Adding hurdles and punitive

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

feet. But it will increase hunger and hardship for many

families.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office also reports

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

losing free school meals during the school year, a double

whammy for poor, working families. Research demonstrates the

deep connections between hunger and health, particularly for

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

their developing minds and bodies, they are more likely to

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

likely to access a future free from poverty.

We urge members of the House of Representatives to take a

stand for children and families and oppose this

legislation.''

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

May 9, 2018.

Dear Representative: As child advocates in the areas of

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

education, we are writing to express our opposition to the

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

harm the millions of children who rely on federal nutrition

programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

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

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

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

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

children, which also lowers the odds of household and child

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

hospitalization for failure to thrive, and developmental

delays. Research has also found that receiving SNAP in early

childhood improved high school graduation rates, adult

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

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

recipients and receiving nearly half of every SNAP dollar. In

addition, school breakfast and lunch programs provide many of

these same children a nutritious morning and lunchtime meal

each day. Because children experience both poverty and food

insecurity at higher rates than the general population,

federal nutrition programs such as SNAP and school meals are

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

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

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

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

access to vital nutrition programs for the countless children

and youth that we represent:

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

harmful changes to state options that simplify SNAP

eligibility requirements to improve access to SNAP for poor

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

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

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

which gives states additional flexibility and efficiency in

granting SNAP eligibility. This change will reinstate a

benefit cliff in a majority of states, jeopardizing food

assistance for 400,000 households who are scraping by on

earnings just above 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Undermine the Ability of Poor and Low-Income Families with

Children to Build Savings: Similarly, the virtual elimination

by

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

have to introduce a counterproductive and costly process of

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

cause many families to lose eligibility solely because of red

tape, and force other families choose between meeting their

basic need for food and building up the savings and resources

that would help them achieve economic mobility.

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

Meals: Under current law, children who receive SNAP are

directly certified for free school meal programs. These meals

help combat childhood hunger, while playing an important role

in improving academic achievement and test scores and

reducing absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline referrals. By

forcing families off of SNAP due to changes in categorical

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

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

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

school meals.

Undermine SNAP benefits for Poor and Low-Income Children

Whose Families Rely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

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

households afford their monthly utility bills. Under current

law, some states allow households to use LIHEAP benefits

greater than $20/month as proof of significant energy

expenses, creating a streamlined method for families to

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

2 removes this option for households that do not have an

elderly member, effectively requiring poor and low-income

families with children to provide substantial documentation

of energy bills on a frequent basis for caseworkers to

determine their utility allowance, which could discourage

them from seeking the larger benefit or decrease its size.

Harsh Work Requirements: Under current law, existing SNAP

work requirements aimed at childless adults already have

unintended and harmful consequences for children (for

instance, those who rely on pooled resources from extended

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

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

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

reduces state flexibilities for exemptions, and requires

states to implement costly training and employment programs

that will take funds from food benefits to support a

bureaucracy that will not provide quality services to people.

The consequences of these changes could be devastating for

countless children and youth, including:

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

the unprecedented step of expanding work requirements to

adults with school-aged children. This provision risks the

wellbeing of children whose parents or guardians are: 1)

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

disability; 2) have physical or mental health disabilities

that don't qualify as a disability under the legal

definition; 3) face substantial barriers to work, including

substance abuse issues or domestic violence; 4) working but

struggling to meet the 20 hour per week threshold or the

burdensome documentation requirements; and 5) have difficulty

obtaining childcare or transportation. For these parents or

guardians, losing SNAP translates to a benefit cut for their

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

for their children. Some parents and guardians may also

erroneously believe that their inability to meet these new

work requirements makes their children ineligible for SNAP as

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

benefits for the entire family.

In addition, children in very vulnerable families may be

impacted by the new requirements, such as:

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

million children are being raised by their grandparents or

other relatives, in part because families are dealing with

parental alcohol and substance abuse issues, which are

growing rapidly due to the opioid epidemic. And already,

these families face barriers to accessing the full array of

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

threaten the ability of grandparents and other older

relatives to care for children because it expands work

requirements for adults up to age 60 who are caring for

children over six years of age.

Children in Families with a History of Family Violence:

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

children to meet the new work requirements unless they

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

parents to cooperate with state Child Support Enforcement

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

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

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

effectively eliminates existing state flexibility around CSE

cooperation, meaning parents who would like to apply for SNAP

but are afraid of CSE requirements which would link them to

their abusers are forced to choose between safety and feeding

their children.

Children in Military and Veteran Families: Many veteran and

military families need help feeding themselves and their

children. Today, households that include a veteran with a

disability are nearly twice as likely to lack access to

adequate food as households that do not include someone with

a disability, and sadly, food insecurity rates are nearly

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

serving military families often experience food insecurity

because of financial emergencies, low pay, and crisis levels

of chronic unemployment or underemployment of military

spouses in a society where most families need dual incomes to

live. By subjecting these parents, including those suffering

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

families in need who have already sacrificed so much for our

nation.

Youth aging out of foster care and unaccompanied, homeless

youth: Youth aging out of foster care often face various

challenges, including homelessness, difficulty affording

education, and finding employment. Unaccompanied homeless

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

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

similar difficulties, especially when they reach age 18.

Existing SNAP work requirements already create a substantial

barrier for these young people from accessing food

assistance, because they technically meet the definition of a

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

these vulnerable young adults will face even larger obstacles

to food assistance.

The Farm Bill represents an important opportunity for

policy solutions that will strengthen and improve nutrition

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

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

over 10 years and will disproportionately hurt children

through its harmful provisions. We urge you to protect our

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

Thank you for your time and attention.

Signed,

1,000 Days, African American Health Alliance, Afterschool

Alliance, American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Council of

Human Service Providers, Association of Farmworker

Opportunity Programs, Campaign for Youth Justice, Center for

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

Child Labor Coalition, Child Welfare League of America,

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

Children's Advocacy Institute, Coalition on Human Needs,

Covenant House International, Division for Early Childhood of

the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC), Every Child

Matters, Families USA, Family Focused Treatment Association.

Family Focused Treatment Association, First Five Years

Fund, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research &

Action Center, Forum for Youth Investment, Generations

United, Healthy Teen Network, Jumpstart, Lutheran Services in

America, Methodist Children's Home Society, MomsRising,

National Alliance of Children's Trust & Prevention Funds,

National Association for Family Child Care, National

Association for the Education of Young Children, National

Association of Counsel for Children, National Center on

Adoption and Permanency, National Consumers League, National

Council of Jewish Women, National Diaper Bank Network,

National Health Law Program.

National Human Services Assembly, National Indian Child

Welfare Association, National Migrant Seasonal Head Start

Association, National Network for Youth, National PTA,

National Urban League, National WIC Association, National

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

Partnership for America's Children, PolicyLink, Prosperity

Now, Public Advocacy for Kids, Racial and Ethnic Health

Disparities Coalition.

RESULTS, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law,

SchoolHouse Connection, Share Our Strength, Social Advocates

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

Criminalization of Poverty Project at the Institute for

Policy Studies, The National Association for Bilingual

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

Regional Advocacy Project, Youth Villages, YWCA USA.

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

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2018.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members

of the National Education Association and the 50 million

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

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

amendments that further weaken the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program. This bill makes unnecessary changes to

eligibility requirements that could reduce the number of

students certified for free school meals. The bill also

imposes additional work requirements for adults that will

make it harder for some people to get or keep critical

nutrition benefits. Votes associated with this issue may be

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

The Farm Bill, as this reauthorization is commonly known,

provides funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

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

program. By providing monthly benefits to eligible low-income

people to purchase food, SNAP plays a critical role in

reducing hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, and improving

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

reaches key vulnerable populations--78 percent of SNAP

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

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

households. SNAP lifted 3.6 million Americans out of poverty

in 2016, according to the Census Bureau's Supplemental

Poverty Measure. By providing much needed economic support,

SNAP allows families to have sufficient nutrition during

times of unemployment, fluctuating incomes, and low-wage

work.

Children living in households that receive SNAP benefits

are eligible to receive free school meals. The healthy meals

that low-income children receive at school fight hunger,

improve academic performance, and help reduce absenteeism,

tardiness, and discipline referrals. According to the Food

Research and Action Center, linking children in SNAP

households to school meals is so important that Congress

required all school districts participating in the National

School Lunch Program to directly certify their students for

free school meals.

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

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

categorical eligibility option under current

rules that expands SNAP eligibility to assist working

families that still struggle to make ends meet. According to

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

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

could apply for school meals via a burdensome paper process,

there is no guarantee that they will still be eligible for

the program or recertified in a timely manner. This would

cost their families even more when they have just lost SNAP

benefits. Further, this puts an enormous administrative

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

Direct Certification for SNAP also provides the foundation

for the Community Eligibility Provision, a hugely successful

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

free breakfast and lunch to their students. The provision

eliminates the need for schools to collect and process school

meal applications, which allows schools to focus on providing

healthy and appealing meals instead of processing paperwork.

Schools are eligible to implement community eligibility if at

least 40 percent of their students are certified to receive

free school meals without submitting an application.

Reducing the number of students who are directly certified

by changing the rules for broad-based categorical eligibility

means that fewer schools will be eligible to implement

community eligibility, and many schools that are eligible

will find that it is no longer financially viable, because

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

This would increase unnecessary paperwork for schools and

inhibit student success.

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

eligibility will result in working families losing much

needed food benefits. It also means that their children could

lose free school meals, amplifying the negative impact of the

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

at school.

The bill further imposes aggressive new work requirements,

which are unnecessary, unworkable and likely to do more harm

than good. It would require SNAP participants ages 18 through

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

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

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

a combination of the two. These new requirements would force

states to develop large new bureaucracies that would need to

track millions of SNAP recipients, but likely would do little

to boost employment, particularly given that the new funding

provided in the bill for job training and work slots would

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

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

Further, the requirements would leave low-income people with

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

members with illness--with neither earnings nor food

assistance.

We also have particular concern about amendments filed for

Rules Committee consideration that would undermine the

nutrition guidelines for school meals programs. These

guidelines are currently being implemented in schools, and

have already led to increased fruit and vegetable consumption

by students. Good nutrition is particularly important for

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

half of their calories every day at school. Additionally,

USDA has only recently published an interim rule for school

meals that provides additional flexibility on the guidelines

for schools. These amendments would only add uncertainty to

this process and threaten the nutritional quality of the

meals offered to students.

We urge you to oppose any amendments that could threaten

mandatory safety net programs beyond SNAP, such as Medicaid,

Medicare, Social Security, and Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families.

The bill further includes $65 million in loans and grants

administered by the Department of Agriculture to support

Association Health Plans (AHP) offered through organizations

that will eliminate coverage of essential health benefits

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

expensive option than current small group market plans that

include comprehensive coverage and consumer protections.

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

not be required to cover services such as prescription drugs,

mental health and maternity care leading to insufficient and

inadequate care for children and adults.

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

amendments aimed at weakening the healthy guidelines for

school meals, and any amendments that make it even more

difficult for SNAP participants to receive critical nutrition

benefits.

Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,

National Education Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

This was the most offensive process I have ever witnessed.

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bipartisan negotiations over the farm bill stopped--

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

Thursday afternoon, after House Agriculture Committee

ranking member Collin Peterson--

The ranking Democrat.

--faced pressure from fellow Democrats, who complained that

discussions about changes to the food stamp program were

being kept secret.

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

The development--

Politico goes on to say.

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

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

this Congress. Congress is supposed to reauthorize the farm

bill every 5 years, but political wrangling has threatened

its fate. Current law expires September 30.

Peterson's decision--

Collin Peterson is the ranking Democrat.

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

stop negotiations until the text of the bill is made to

everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to provisions of this bill which attack bedrock environmental laws and recklessly promote logging over clean water, recreation, and wildlife.

In a district like mine, where the holdings of the U.S. Forest Service are extensive, this bill is a critical part of helping to protect our economy, our way of life, and the way we enjoy our public lands.

Title 8 of the bill includes blatant attempts that undermine the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the roadless area conservation rule. This bill allows for congressional exemptions--basically, an earmark-- to prevent environmental reviews and public comment periods that actually prevent communities from having a say over what happens quite literally in their backyard. I think that we need to make sure that we involve our local communities. This bill empowers Washington,

D.C., decisionmakers by taking that control away from our communities.

It weakens the Endangered Species Act by eliminating scientific expert opinion about whether projects would harm endangered species and their critical habitats, and it prioritizes logging over recreation, even going so far as shifting incentives to emphasize logging over environmental restoration in other areas that support the outdoor recreation economy, one of the biggest sources of jobs in my district and in my State.

Before the ink is even dry on the omnibus, this farm bill threatens to renege on the bipartisan wildfire budget deal with more proposals that weaken protections and mitigation on our public lands.

In my State, the 6,000-acre congressional exemption or earmark would have a detrimental impact, but it would have an even worse impact on the much smaller Eastern and Midwestern forests, where 6,000 acres would vastly exceed the annual sustainable maximum harvest.

When the Forest Service needs to do a 6,000-acre project, it already can. It needs to take input from the public nearby in our neighborhoods and in our communities about how they would be affected. Of course, it should consider how water, soil, and wildlife habitat can be protected.

For years, congressional debate over forest management has been framed by the need to address hazardous fuels for wildfires. This bill takes a step away from that and makes it clear that reform efforts weren't actually about wildfire; they are about efforts to give away our public lands to timber and other industries and silence the voice of residents.

Congress should stop trying to legislate logging projects and take control. Washington should allow our communities to have a say. The Forest Service has many tools today that include local input. All Americans deserve is a say in how our public lands are managed. Endangered species should certainly not be sacrificed just so more of our forests can be logged.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 120 conservation groups opposed to these harmful forestry provisions in H.R. 2, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

May 11, 2018.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters we urge you to strongly oppose the extreme and

divisively partisan federal forest provisions in the Forestry

Title of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (H.R. 2),

also known as ``the House Farm Bill.''

The legislation is replete with provisions that undermine

bedrock environmental laws, including the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act

(ESA), and Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule).

This bill consistently prioritizes the logging industry over

all other forest stakeholders. It would cause irreparable

harm to our federal forests, the millions of Americans who

depend on them for clean drinking water, subsistence,

recreation, and economic benefit, and the wildlife that call

them home.

The federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill also

run contrary to the wildfire funding agreement reached only

weeks ago in the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus. A deal was only

reached after significant environmental concessions to pro-

logging hardliners, even though a comprehensive wildfire

funding solution had solid bi-partisan support in both

chambers going into the omnibus negotiation.

Ignoring that compromise, H.R. 2 would allow logging,

grazing, and many other activities on up to 6,000-acres--

almost 10 square miles for each single project--without any

NEPA review or disclosure of potential harms. The numerous

new exemptions are double the size of the legislated NEPA

exclusion just passed in the omnibus deal and they also

eliminate the requirement, preserved in the omnibus

agreement, to consider cumulative effects and ``extraordinary

circumstances'' such as wilderness areas and endangered

species.

This partisan bill also goes further than the omnibus deal

on the ESA, allowing federal land management agencies to

``self-consult'' on whether their actions would harm

threatened and endangered species even though such self-

consultation has already been declared unlawful by the

courts. Additionally, it attacks the landmark Roadless Rule,

makes resource management and forest stewardship dependent on

logging revenue, creating a perverse incentive, and

jeopardizes fire-vulnerable communities by deprioritizing

hazardous fuels reduction efforts in the Wildland Urban

Interface.

The harmful federal forest proposals in this legislation

solve no problem; they only add controversy to the House Farm

Bill and weaken its chances of becoming law.

For all of these reasons we strongly urge you to OPPOSE the

federal forest provisions in the House Farm Bill and any

amendments that further undermine environmental safeguards on

our federal forests.

Thank you,

Alaska Wilderness League; Allegheny Defense Project; Alpine

Lakes Protection Society; Appalachian Voices; Arise for

Social Justice; Bark; Beaver Valley Preservation Alliance;

California Native Plant Society; Cascade Forest Conservancy;

Cascadia Wildlands; Center for Biological Diversity; Center

for Sierra Nevada Conservation; Cherokee Forest Voices;

Christians For The Mountains; Climate Change Major Disaster

Declaration Campaign; Colorado Native Plant Society;

Conservation Colorado; Conservation Congress; Conservation

Northwest; Darby Creek Valley Association.

Defenders of Wildlife; Dolores River Boating Advocates;

Earth Island Institute's John Muir Project; Earthjustice;

Endangered Species Coalition; EnviroAce, LLC; Environmental

Protection Information Center; Friends of Bell Smith Springs;

Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends of Lake Monroe; Friends of

Plumas Wilderness; Friends of the Bitterroot; Friends of the

Inyo; Georgia ForestWatch; Grand Canyon Trust; Great Old

Broads for Wilderness; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Grand

Junction Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Rio

Grande Valley Broadband; Great Old Broads for Wilderness--

Select Roaring Fork Broadband; Greater Hells Canyon Council.

Greenvironment, LLC; Heartwood; High Country Conservation

Advocates; Hoosier Environmental Council; Idaho Conservation

League; Indiana Forest Alliance; Izaak Walton League Bush

Lake Chapter; Izaak Walton League Cass Count Chapter; Izaak

Walton League W.J. McCabe Chapter; Kentucky Conservation

Committee; Kentucky Environmental Foundation; Kentucky

Heartwood; Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.; Kettle Range

Conservation Group; Klamath Forest Alliance; KS Wild; La

Cueva Guardians; League of Conservation Voters; Los Padres

ForestWatch; Mass Forest Rescue Campaign.

Minnesota Division Izaak Walton League of America; Montana

Wilderness Association; MountainTrue; National Parks

Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council;

Nature Abounds; Nature for All; New Mexico Sportsmen; New

Mexico Wild; New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; New Mexico

Wildlife Federation; New River Alliance of Climbers; North

Cascades Conservation Council; Northcoast Environmental

Center; Ohio Environmental Council; Olympic Forest Coalition;

Olympic Park Associates; Once a Forest; Oregon Wild;

Partnership for Policy Integrity.

Partnership for the National Trails System; PennFuture;

Pennsylvania Council of Churches; Public Lands Media;

RESTORE: The North Woods; Rocky Mountain Recreation

Initiative; Rocky Mountain Wild; San Juan Citizens Alliance;

San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council; Sangre de Cristo Audubon

Society; Santa Fe Forest Coalition; Save Our Sky Blue Waters;

Sequoia ForestKeeper; Shawnee Forest Sentinels; Sheep

Mountain Alliance; Sheltowee Trace Association; Sierra Club;

Sierra Forest Legacy; Sky Island Alliance; Southern

Environmental Law Center.

Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment;

Speak for the Trees; Tennessee Wild; The Enviro Show; The

Lands Council; The Wilderness Society; Tulare County Audubon

Society; Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.; Virginia Wilderness

Committee; Water Stone Outdoors; West Virginia Environmental

Council; West Virginia Highlands Conservancy; West Virginia

Rivers Coalition; West Virginia Wilderness Coalition; Western

Environmental Law Center; White Mountain Conservation League;

WildEarth Guardians; Wilderness Workshop; Winter Wildlands

Alliance; Zumbro Valley Audubon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I originally had some things written down on paper, but based on the last comments, I just want to echo the sentiments of my colleague and also share that I served as Secretary of Labor in the State of Delaware. I served as head of State personnel.

Jobs are important to us. I had the opportunity to work on WIA, WIOA, all of those great pieces of legislation for workforce development. And I want to talk about some myths.

There is a myth that the majority of people on SNAP aren't working or won't work in a year. That is a myth. Two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and people with disabilities. People don't realize that. And there are 6 million unfilled jobs. So, for me, the problem with this bill, the biggest problem is that it was a missed opportunity.

If we are truly serious about employing people who are returning from prison, people who maybe have a disability--

Mr. Speaker, if we are truly serious, then we will come to the table. But when the table is set in stone, then we don't get an opportunity to really work on those things that will support the American people.

The other piece that was disappointing to me is, I came to this as a person who wanted to be on this committee because of its bipartisan nature and that the American people are waiting and watching to see us come together for them. This is a loss of confidence, and it is also a missed opportunity.

I am excited and hopeful that we will come together because the people are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that I wrote to Secretary Perdue, because there were a lot of questions and assumptions that were never answered even in our markup.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2018.

Hon. Sonny Perdue,

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Perdue: I am writing to request that the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) respond to my inquiries

regarding H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018,

which is also known as the Farm Bill. As a member of the

House Committee on Agriculture, I am one of 46 Members

sitting on the committee of jurisdiction for this

legislation. Given the breadth of the proposed changes in the

Farm Bill, I want to take this opportunity to reach out to

the agency that will be responsible for implementing the

provisions in the bill.

During the markup of the Farm Bill on April 18, 2018, my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle were only able to

direct questions to Chairman Conaway. However, I believe it

is essential that we hear from the experts involved in

running these programs to ensure we are advocating for

policies that are evidence-based. As a result, I respectfully

ask that you address the following questions and provide a

timely response.

Workforce Programs

My understanding is that we would need anywhere between

three to five million more slots in workforce training

programs across the country if all eligible SNAP participants

would like to enroll in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T)

programs. The bill would provide a new federal E&T grant of

$1 billion per year to finance the newly mandated work

program, which comes out to less than $30 per person per

month. Upon what evidence and or best practices has this

number been arrived at? Does the USDA believe this is

sufficient? If not, what does the USDA think is sufficient to

implement a meaningful workforce development program and move

people into work?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis says it

would take a decade to set up a program for everyone to get a

work slot. If state E&T costs are greater than their annual

federal grant, will states bear the additional costs

associated with operating the work programs? What breakdown

does USDA expect in administration expenses between job

training, IT, administrative costs, and other programs? What

are the ramifications for states of not fully implementing

their work programs?

What additional capacity would USDA require to oversee this

new work program? Would states experience increased

administrative costs under this proposal?

When specifically will we hear the results from the 2014

Farm Bill SNAP E&T Pilot Projects? Under current law, what

are your expectations for sharing these findings and building

them into USDA oversight of state E&T? If H.R. 2 were to be

enacted as proposed, when will you be able to incorporate the

findings from the pilot projects into the SNAP program, based

on how this bill is written?

I appreciate your timely consideration and the work you do

for farmers, families, and communities across the country.

Sincerely,

Lisa Blunt Rochester,

Committee Member,

House Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 35) to transfer administrative jurisdiction over certain Bureau of Land Management land from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for inclusion in the Black Hills National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is the House sponsor of this particular bill and who has done so much work on this. I allow her to introduce this piece of legislation that is so significant to her State.

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

This is talking about 200 acres of public property that needs to be used by a national cemetery that was created back in 1948 as the final resting place of people who gave their last and gave their all for the defense of this country. It includes the final resting place of Medal of Honor Recipient Sergeant Charles Winthrop. A memorial to Korean war veterans is there. And 16 years ago, it was made part of the National Cemetery System.

It is significant that we are doing this particular process right now. I think it is important that both the Bureau of Land Management and the Veterans Affairs Department are both in support of this transfer, because this illustrates not only the significance of this cemetery and what it allows people to do, to honor those who have given their all for this Nation, but it allows us to have the proper use of public lands.

Here are now 200 acres of public land that is going to be used for a public purpose, and that is the reason you have public lands in the first place. If this 200 acres were simply to sit there with nothing to do, then there is no reason for anybody to own it in the first place. But having public lands now used for a public purpose that elevates, enlightens, and ennobles us is how you are supposed to be using public lands.

So I am appreciative of Representative Noem for introducing this bill on several occasions. The last time it actually came to this floor, we voted on it. It was a tough vote; it was 407-0. I am grateful it finally has a Senate sponsor and the Senate has actually done something to send us this bill back so we can allow Representative Noem to do what she does best in pushing things forward for the State of South Dakota in a positive and selfless way, and I am looking forward to the vote on this one.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure. I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

Washington, DC, April 5, 2018.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning S. 35,

the Black Hills National Cemetery Boundary Expansion Act.

There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans'

Affairs.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its

Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to

name members of this committee to any conference committee

which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on S. 35

and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the

measure on the House floor. Thank you.

Sincerely,

David P. Roe, M.D.,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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