we get her confirmed today. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i come to the floor to talk about the nation's first line of defense against hunger. the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap. since day one in the senate, i have fought to pass a farm bill that stands up for north dakota's farmers, ranchers and low-income families. in 2014, we passed a strong farm bill which i helped write, negotiate, and pass. and since then i have been working on the next farm bill. now the senate is incredibly close to passing the next farm bill which we crafted with strong support from democrats and republicans. this important bill shows that the senate can work to find compromise and support the american people. a key component of any farm bill is the safety net for farmers and ranchers during tough times, like crop insurance. it also includes a safety net

for families who fall on hard times. our nation is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. yet, despite our great wealth, more than one out of seven americans live below the poverty line. and snap provides the critical food safety net for these americans who are food insecure. in my home state of north dakota about 54,000 north dakotans participate in snap on any given day. snap plays a crate cal role -- a critical role in putting food on the table. of those 54,000 north dakotans, 43% are children, 28% are seniors, and about 4% are veterans. families can find themselves needing this assistance for a number of reasons. first, their hours were reduced

at work. they may have been laid off or their places of employment may have gone out of business. an individual may not able to work due to a disability or serious illness. additionally, nearly 9% of seniors live below the poverty level. snap helps those seniors with those needs, many of whom live on fixed intersection. not one of us can predict when an unexpected life event will happen to us, and thankfully snap is available to provide at-risk families with the safety net they need. very few people, other than those with disabilities, the eltderly, or others who cannot work stay on snap for more than three months in a 36 month period. half of those new to the snap program will leave it within nine months once they become financially stable. yesterday i stood here to talk about the critical bipartisan

work of the chairman an ranking member on the senate ag committee and what they have done for ranchers and farmers. this bipartisan farm bill includes a number of provisions that work to improve employment and training opportunities in programs that help parents find new jobs or obtain new skills so that they can qualify for higher-paying jobs. this includes expanding snap employment training demonstration projects that authorized under the 2014 farm bill. these pilot programs create more opportunities to build evidence on what best -- works best in helping snap participants secure and retain jobs and advance in the labor market. additionally, the senate farm bill encourages states to create new private-public partnerships around job training and leverage existing -- and leverage existing job training programs

for snap participants. during consideration of the 2014 farm bill, the senate ag committee, which i proudly sit on, also worked to responsibly cut $4 billion -- $4 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse from the program while protecting low-income families who rely on this lifesaving program during times of need. the senate bill continues to improve snap's integrity by preventing dual participation, by enabling states to check whether applicants have already enrolled in other states. in other words, the snap program, as laid out in the farm bill that we'll be considering, is a program that has the necessary reforms, has the necessary balance. no one -- no one in this body wants someone who is unworthy to receive snap benefits but we

also do not want families who need that critical benefit to be -- find it onerous or impossible to access food for their children, food for their grandchildren or food for our veterans. so a week ago the house of representatives narrowly passed its version of the farm bill by two votes which would draskly -- drastically cut snap. this farm bill was even oppose 0ed by 20 republican members. as a ranking member of the house ag committee car lon peterson said, the bill simply doesn't do enough for the people it's supposed to serve. it still leaves farmers and ranchers vulnerable and it worsens hunger and it fails to serve rural communities. this approach makes reckless cuts to the nutrition safety net and in so doing significantly jeopardize our chances of

passing a farm bill. any effort to separate farm programs from children programs will -- will threat keeping the farm bill a bipartisan effort. the house bill affects the critical lifelines for struggling families, seniors, and americans with disabilities. there's no place for politics when it comes to protecting these vulnerable members of our society. according to the congressional budget office, the house farm bill would cause more than two million individuals and more than one million households to lose their benefits. this simply won't impact single adults. but when a parent loses their food assistance, there isn't enough money to buy for the whole household, including the children. the house farm bill would expand the rigid work requirements in

snap. this includes working parents, children, seniors, veterans, disabled americans, and a quarter of a million children would lose their access to personal lunch -- or to school lunch. last saturday i was asked to participate in a discussion with the faith-based community in my state about their concerns about the snap program. we were given at that time a couple of stories that i think are significant for review here in the -- in the senate, and so we want to start out by telling you about kim. kim is a woman, mom -- single mom with two beautiful children. she lives in bismarck, north dakota. she works as an accounting assistant. when she doesn't have full-time hours, she works as a substitute

at area day cares. since her divorce four years ago her family has been eligible for snap benefits. kim says, we do what we can, but usual we're eating rama by the end of the month. we don't want to eat cheap food but there's never enough money to buy healthy food. to stretch their food budget, kim tries to get to the children to the banquet which is a local feeding ministry for meals two to three times a week. they also visit the local food pantry. she has told us that if i can only speak for myself, i am grateful for this program every single day. i'm working hard. if i don't have enough to eat, i can't work. if i'm not healthy, i need even more support. this is an incredibly common theme among snap families. i think it's worth mentioning that the average meal benefit in north dakota -- now i want to

repeat this -- the average benefit per meal in north dakota is $1.32. you can't even get a bowl of senate bean soup for $1.32. next there's ricky. ricky was born in my knot -- in north dakota where he grew up in poverty and spent his childhood on food stamps. richie suffered an unfortunate accident in his workplace. so ricky was working, god injured, he woke up in a coma three weeks later. he was later diagnosed with epilepsy and he can no longer drive or work. like ricky, his parents are disabled, and the program has offered them consistent safety net during their difficult time. from his childhood he recalls his family rarely had money for food and if it wasn't for food

stamps we would have starved easily. there were times my family couldn't celebrate birthdays because my family didn't have anything. now that he is living on his own in fargo, hunger is still a problem for ricky. understanding his difficult situation and all that the snap program has meant to he and his family, ricky is passionate about stopping lawmakers from making unnecessary cuts to this program. for ricky and his family, the snap benefits that he has received are more than just a benefit. they are a way of life and a lifeline. for individuals who are homeless or trying to get back on the right track, snap can play an invaluable role of playing a bit of security. folks who benefited from -- from the helping hands snap provides are all around us. they could be our neighbors, they could be our friends, they could even be a pastor.

many years ago, about six years ago when i was traveling the state, i had an opportunity to have a discussion in a rural community. that discussion went something like this. many people raised concerns about people taking government benefits when they didn't need them. i sympathize. i don't think we should need that to -- to stop fraud, waste, and abuse. after there was a long discussion about snap or food stamps, the room cleared and a young pastor came up to me and his wife with was -- was with him holding their latest child, looked like a 2-year-old toddler and said, i didn't want to tell you this in front of the community, but i want you to know that i'm on snap. my family's on snap. we still can't buy milk. we buy powdered milk. if i want to do paid ministry, i

can't do enough to pay for the food. i don't think we always realize those around us are struggling, those who are teachers, teachers aide, as c.n.a.'s, people are working hard who are tripped up by some of the onerous standards, some of the onerous requirements in the farm bill that was passed by the house. i think it's critically important that we understand there are very, very few people in america who are abusers of this program. there are very, very few people in america who would take a handout unless they absolutely needed it. they need a hand up. they need job training. they need sympathy for disabilities, and they need to know that we live in a country that cares for the hungry around us. and so as we consider the farm

bill, it's important to remind ourselves about those who are not as fortunate as we are, those who struggle to put food on the table for their families or who might not be able to put food on the table because we're laid off or their hours were reduced at their imagine jobs. -- minimum wage jobs. the chairman and ranking member have found ways to improve snap's integrity and operation. i hope that the senate votes on and passes this strong farm bill and i hope the house will work through august, just as the senate will do, to reach agreement and pass a strong farm bill before it expires and jeopardize snap further. the farm bill gives farmers the senator they need to get through tough times. it's important that it also maintains a strong safety net to give certainty to our nation's families so that they can get

the support and food that they need at the same time. so i urge all of my -- all of my colleagues to stand with ranking member and the chairman and all of the senate ag committee in supporting this farm bill and supporting the nutrition title of this p -- of this farm bill. mr. president. i ask that we be put in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, most people in america are probably familiar with the advertising slogans pork, the other white meat, and beef, it's what's for dinner, but what they might not know, what they might not be as aware of is the underbelly of slogans like these. the u.s. department of agriculture checkoff programs

like these slogans and others like them get compulsory fees from producers of milk, eggs, beef, and other agricultural products. these funds have been used to promote and do research on those particular commodities. unfortunately, these programs have been rife with opportunities for abuse. many of these programs have crept far beyond the scope of their statutory mandate by engaging in illegal lobbying and anticompetitive activities. take, for example, the case of a small california company called just ink formerly known as hampton creek which a few years ago was attacked for ceiling its vegan mayonnaise known as just mayo in stores nationwide. it turns out that a federal entity called the american egg board conspired with usda board and top executives of the egg industry into coerce and not carrying the just mayo brand. the original intent of these programs was to research and

promote certain commodities, not to disparage other ones, and they certainly were not intended to prevent any new products from having a fair chance in the marketplace. let me just stop, by the way, while we're talking about just mayo and that incident, to take note of the fact that it ought to be very concerning to us that the federal government became involved in a campaign to pressure someone about whether or not they could set up a brand of vegan mayonnaise and call it that. so what we're supposed to be -- so what were supposed to be promotional boards have instead become protectionist boards. what's more, checkout programs force farmers to pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests. and on top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. some have gone so far as failing

to submit congressionally mandated spending reports, refusing and delaying requests under foia and even engaging in protracted legal battles to prevent public audits from being disclosed. in short, these programs, the so-called checkoff programs, are in significant need of reform. this is why i have worked hard with my colleagues, senator booker, senator hassan, senator paul, and senator warren, to introduce amendment number 3074. this amendment would address some of the most grievous abuses of these commodity checkoff programs. first, the amendment would prohibit them, these checkoff programs, from contracting with any organization that lobbies on agricultural policy with an exemption for research at institutions of higher education. it would also prohibit employees and agents of the checkoff boards from engaging in activities that may pose a conflict of interest. furthermore, the amendment would establish uniform standards for

checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity and any unfair or deceptive practices. and while this amendment would not abolish checkoff programs, it would implement much-needed transparency measures so that farmers can see what their checkoff dollars are actually being spent to do. these commonsense reforms will not be convenient, perhaps, to the giants of the agricultural industry, at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to rig the system in their favor. these commonsense reforms will help farmers and particularly the little guys from the small farms and the start-up companies to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used unfairly against them. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to bring

about much-needed reform with checkoff programs. i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: the amendment offered by senator lee and senator booker would prohibits checkoffs from partnering with farm groups and others that engage with government. this prohibition would extend far beyond farm country. it would have negative impacts on the general public. this is because checkoffs partner with a diverse number of entities, not just farm organizations, to conduct research and education campaigns on environmental, conservation, improved nutrition, and other critical areas that benefit our entire society. examples of entities who have contracted with checkoffs and would be barred from continuing checkoff work because they engaged in lobbying include the american heart association, the american association of pediatrics, and the national women, infants, and children association. these organizations and many others would be prohibited from

partnering with checkoffs if this amendment were adopted. i urge my colleagues to think carefully about the impact this amendment would have, and i urge a no vote on the lee-booker amendment. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i join with the chairman in asking members to vote no on this amendment. thank you. mr. roberts: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc -- the amendment by senator isakson 3348, ?ars widen and -- senators widen and murkowski, senators king and collins 3221, senators gillibrand and toomey 3390, senator heinrich 3287, senator rubio 3364, senator sullivan 3303, senator hirono 3321, senator cortez masto, senators

brown and portman 3323, senator cantwell 3365, senator moran 3171, and senator thune 3371. i further ask that it be in order for the following amendment to be called up and reported by number, the amendment by senator lee. i further ask that there be cloture motions with respect to senator -- pardon me h.r. 2 be withdrawn and the senate now vote on the following amendments in the order listed -- senator lee number 3074, senator thune 3134, and senator roberts substitute 3224. further, that the lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption, and that following disposition of the roberts amendment, the bill as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate and the passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment by number.

the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. roberts, for mr. lee proposes an amendment numbered 3074. the presiding officer: the question is on the lee amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk shall call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 38, the nays are 57. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. order. mr. roberts: regular order, mr. president. we have a cattle call here in the middle of the house, regular order. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on the thune amendment numbed -- numbered 3131. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question now occurs on roberts amendment number 3224, as amended. all in favor saya aye -- say aye. all opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: and being act to provide for the reform and continuation of agriculture and other programs and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is now on passage of h.r. 2, as amended. the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: