contained in the bill and provides this body with an opportunity to work its will. despite the large number of amendments submitted, i believe the underlying legislation, h.r. 1947, is a strong and meaningful statement and measure that provides our nation with agriculture and nutrition policy necessary to meet the needs of this country. i want to commend in particular the young chairman of the agriculture committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the ranking member, the gentleman from minnesota, collin peterson, who have worked together over the years not just as time when mr. peterson served as chairman of the committee, but also throughout the years that mr. lucas has worked in a bipartisan basis together, the committee, to work on agriculture policy. their hard work over the past several years have led us to the point of where we are today. .

hard work, working together, thinking, talking about the policy that would be good for the country. that's where we are today. we follow it up with an opportunity to make sure on a bipartisan basis that i work together with my colleagues, my colleagues at the rules committee, notwithstanding ms. slaughter was busy on the floor a lot of the time yesterday. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, sat in, heard the amendments, with the rest of the rules committee. we worked together, staffs, to try and make as many amendments in order that would create an opportunity to follow the leadership set by mr. peterson and chairman lucas. so, this year's farm bill reforms our nation's agricultural programs to provide american farmers with innovative risk management tools. it reforms our nation's supplemental nutrition programs for the first time in nearly two decades. and it invests in meaningful conservation programs to ensure

that future generations of americans benefit from the same resources that we do today. the bottom line is, that topsoil that is in america, which is the greatest in the world, enables our farmers and ranchers to produce goods and services, food that serves the entire world. and i am proud of supporting those people who live a way of life in rural areas. i know them well and i respect the hard work and what they do to make our country stronger and better. impressively h.r. 1947 accomplishes all of this while making difficult decisions on saving over $40 billion over the life of the bill. this legislation is common sense. this legislation is bipartisan. this legislation allows us through an amendment process to

make many tough and difficult decisions based upon representation of this house of representatives about issues baurs we're -- because we're relooking at the entire farm bill. most of all it's fiscally responsible and we offer solutions to not only consumers but also solutions to farmers about how we are going to keep their products and services, famplers -- farmers and ranchers, families, rural communities and consumers, all in a balance to where we know that through the leadership of this house of representatives, that we have done our job. that is why we're here today. we're here to take on tough decisions, we're here to make this farm bill better and i am proud of the product that we present today. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and i support the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts

is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from texas, the distinguished chairman, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 4 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to begin by thanking chairman sessions and thanking the staff and the rules committee, both the majority and the minority, for their hard work in trying to put this rule together. i want to commend chairman sessions in particular i think for making an honest attempt, for trying to include as many amendments as possible. there are over 100 amendments that have been made in order. and i appreciate the fact that so many members -- amendments were made in order and many democratic amendments were made in order. unfortunately some important amendments were not made in order. which means that those of us on this side of the aisle i think will have to oppose this rule. and i certainly also want to

make it clear that i am opposing the underlying bill as it is now written. before i explain why i oppose the farm bill, let me begin also by commending chairman lucas and ranking member peterson and their staffs for all their hard work in crafting this legislation. it is no easy task and they have done their best to thread a very small needle. i'm honored to be a member of the agriculture committee and i want to support a farm bill. i believe this nation need as farm bill. and -- needs a farm bill. and indeed this bill contains a number of good things. i'm pleased that the bill includes an amendment that i offered in committee to close a loophole in federal animal fighting law that allows spectators at animal fights to avoid prosecution. i support the dairy program in this bill and believe that it would be good for dairy farmers in the northeast who are such an important part of our economy. but i cannot and i will not support this farm bill as it is currently written. i cannot support a bill that cuts the snap program by $20.5

billion. i cannot support a bill that will force two million americans to lose their benefits. i cannot support a bill that throws over 200,000 american children off the free school breakfast and lunch program. in short, i cannot support a bill that will make hunger in america even worse than it already is. right now as we speak, as we gaggetser here, there are -- as we gather here, there are 50 million hungry americans, 17 million of them are children. many of them work but do not earn enough to make ends meet. all of us, every single one of us in this chamber should be ashamed by those numbers. food is not a luxury. it is a basic necessity. but there isn't a single congressional district in america that is hunger-free. ending hunger in america used to be a bipartisan issue. to my republican friends i say, remember the work of people like bob dole and bill emerson who dedicated themselves to this issue. be proud of that legacy. don't dismantle it. and to my fellow democrats i say, if we do not stand for

helping the poor and the hungry, then what are we doing here? there are all sorts of nice little deals in this bill for all sorts of people. peanut growers get a nice deal, cotton growers get a nice deal. even sushi rice producers get a nice deal for some reason. but poor people in america, hungry people get a raw deal. it's a rotten thing to do. to cut snap by $20.5 billion. it's a lousy thing to do to throw two million people off this program. i will have an amendment later in this process to restore these cuts to snap in a way that not only reduces subsidies to big agrobusiness but reduces the deficit. so i would urge any of my colleagues who are concerned about deficit reduction to support my amendment. we hear a lot of rhetoric about waste, fraud and abuse in the snap program, even though snap has an incredibly low error rate. i promise you that if our defense programs had the same error rate as snap, we would

save billions and billions and billions of dollars. i'm going to have more to say about my amendment during its consideration but i would urge my colleagues to take a look at it and support it. i'd also like to take a moment to ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered by house foreign affairs committee chairman royce and ranking member engel, to provide modest but important reforms to our international food aid programs. this amendment will enable more people to benefit from our scarce u.s. dollars while ensuring the u.s. commodity producers and shippers remain actively engaged in alleviating hunger around the world. finally, mr. speaker, i am concerned that the rule makes in order several mean-spirited amendments that do nothing but demonize the poor and make their lives even more difficult. i urge my colleagues to oppose those amendments, oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would hope that -- and i can certify that at no time during this process have we

vilified any poor people. we're here to help them. the republican party cares very much about families and children , moms who are trying to make a go of. it we're the ones that are up here trying to lower taxes on everybody. we're the ones that are trying to make sure we got jobs for people. we're the ones that are making sure that we're trying to take pedophiles and rapists and murderers off the roles of government -- rolls of government assistance so it would serve those who need it the most. we're trying to help prioritize and save this system. that's what republicans are trying to do. we would never vilify those that are disabled or who are seniors or who are men and women who richly deserve the opportunity for the government to help them. but likewise, we believe that those who are able-bodied, those who really should be getting up during the day and trying to go find work, do not take

government assistance. and we are very concerned about the rights of seniors, about the rights of women, particular women that have children, and about children, and with disabled, i worked very extensively as a republican with other republicans and with democrats on a bipartisan basis to make sure that we're looking at those needs of disabled people. so, i think it would be unfair to say, well, this bill is aimed to vilify the people that it was intended to help and that's why we're here today. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to -- three minutes to a gentleman who is a -- from gainesville, florida, and was a large animal vet. he understands a lot, not just about the agrinomics but also about the men and women who take

care of this country in agriculture. people who spend their lives there, people who have to take care of their animals and day in and day out the needs that it takes to make sure we have the best farms and ranches in america, animals who are safe and consumers get a good deal. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, dr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to my colleague from texas, mr. sessions. this bill has been a long time coming. with over three years of reviewing, every single usda program, 11 audits and two mark jums, we finally brought -- markups, we finally brought a farm bill to the floor. and with a lot of bipartisan support. this is hugely important for the security and stability of our nation's food supply. without that supply, a nation like ours cannot truly call itself self-secure. i've worked in agriculture all my life, since i was 16 years of

age, and i've seen the regulations that stood in the way of farmers and ranchers and i've seen the regular lyings that have made sure our food supply is the safest in the world. and this legislation cuts through the red tape by eliminating and consolidating over 100 programs while bolstering farm risk management programs so our farmers can keep feeding america during the tough times. i see a lot of theatrics and drama, when we hear people talk about 50 million starving people in this country. i disagree with that. i think there's 330 million starving people, at least three times a day. we call it breakfast, lunch and dinner. but as far as 50 million nutritionly deprived people -- knews -- nutritionally deprived people, i would beg to differ. the snap program does not take one calorie off the plate of anyone who qualifies for the program. let me repeat that. the snap program does not take one calorie off the plate of those who qualify for the program. we simply close the loopholes that allow states to sign people

up into programs without the proper qualifications. to have a secure nation we must have a secure food source and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the rule and for the passing -- and for passing the underlying bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i would say to the gentleman in response, the congressional budget office, not me, but the congressional budget office says that these cuts would throw 2 two million people off of snap -- two million people off of snap and over 200,000 kids off the free breakfast and lunch program. i assure you that people will lose food over these cuts. this is not something we should do. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member mcgovern and commend him for his work on this important rule. i rise in opposition to the rule but frankly am relieved finally

to debate a farm bill in this country. this past year and a half has been marked by far too much uncertainty in our agriculture industry as a result of republican leaders here refusing to even consider a farm bill in the last congress. that's hurt economic growth in this country from coast-to-coast. american agriculture's responsible for one in 12 jobs in our country. and vital to give confidence to the market and to give certainty to our agricultural enterprises that we move a bill forward. thank goodness the other body did it and we are commelled -- compelled to do it here. but, this bill cuts $20.5 billion in nutrition assistance that will cut over two million low-income people, starting with senior citizens in this country, and with children who won't get school meals anymore. i don't know what the gentleman from texas is talking about, i've invited him to ohio before and i hope he accepts my invitation. simply, these cuts are unconscionable. shockingly the bill also has zero funding for the energy

title. when american energy security is at stake. and gas prices hovering at around $4 a gallon, to not invest in that is simply backwards thinking. i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and hopefully we can improve this bill as it comes to the floor for a final vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. mcgovern: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. it has severe and immoral cuts to the food stamp programs, slashing so deeply into nutrition support for hungry families. at a time of great need all across this country, it is cruel, it is unnecessary and it's an advocation of our

responsibility to the american people. over the past 30 years, policies aimed at debt and deficit reduction to key programs that help the most vulnerable among us to get by have always been protected from deep cuts. recent examples, simpson-bowles. this has been a bipartisan tradition for decades, but this farm bill destroys that tradition. this bill slashes food stamps by more than $20 billion. it hurts millions of americans and our economy. it will force up to two million americans to go hungry. it kicks roughly 210,000 children from the school lunch program, and it changes the relationship between the food stamp program and the low-income home energy assistance program which takes benefits away from seniors and from our families. let's make it clear, you cannot get food stamps unless you qualify for them.

there is nothing automatic about it. food stamps are our country's most important effort to deal with hunger here at home. 47 million americans are helped. half of them killed, and they are proven to curb hunger and improve low-income children's health, growth and development. they have one of the lowest ever rates of any government program. 3.8%. i tell my colleague from texas, you want to find money in this budget go to the crop insurance program which is ripping off billions of dollars from u.s. taxpayers. that's where the money is, not where the program is to feed our kids. food stamps are good for the economy. they get resources into the hands of families who will spend them right away. and most importantly, they're the right thing to do. let me quote the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. ms. delauro: catholic bishops, we must form a circle of protection around programs that serve the poor and the vulnerable in our nation and throughout the world.

harry truman, quote, nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children, proper nourish moment comes first in obtaining this welfare. let's pursue a balanced approach. i urge my colleagues, vote against this rule, vote against the underlying bill. this does not reflect the values of this great nation, and it be a vow indicates our -- advocates our moral responsibility in this nation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i appreciate the gentlewoman coming down and speaking. she was at the rules committee yesterday and really sat for a long period of time in order to have her ideas taken up by the rules committee. and as she knows, she's going to get a vote on what she spoke about today. this bill, it's not in there yet. she'll have a chance. this body will have a chance to determine whether we're going to go one direction or the

other. what drives the behavior of all this is very interesting. we're trying to work with -- on a high level something that's going to happen again soon in this next cycle starting at the end of september and it's called sequestration again. president obama's idea of sequestration which will cut $85 billion more across the board, and the entire government is struggling of how we're going to make these changes. our g.d.p. is at less than 1%. 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. we are working with the policies of the democratic party that are bankrupting this country. there are people who are hurting. there are people who need jobs, who need food, need to take care of their families, need to take care of paying their student loans. this house of representatives is on the mark of saying how we should solve each and every one

of these problems. they essentially go back to when republicans had control of the house of representatives, the united states senate and the presidency where 60 straight months there was sustained, ongoing economic growth. oh, my gosh, that was under george bush. well, that's right. president bush and republicans helped this country to achife a doubling of g.d.p. -- achieving a doubling of g.d.p., of moving our country forward, but there's also another model of success out there and it was called president clinton who came and worked with the house of representatives, who took republican ideas, who took the ideas which we put and merged them with his own -- he called them his own -- but moved this country forward. instead today we have leadership of our country that no. no, no, we passed bipartisan legislation, cybersecurity. what's the president's answer?

no. we've come today with bipartisan legislation from two stalwarts, men who served this great nation in the agriculture committee for years of service, bringing them together with the best ideas to try and formulate a policy. today there will be examples of people who can control the destiny of these ideas. one is about trying to take off rapists, pedophiles and murderers. another that says we are not going to allow those that have won the lottery to be able to continue to receive food stamps. that's how this bipartisan bill is being crafted and worked together. again, every member of this body will vote in the final direction. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i

yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let be clear that the $20.5 billion cut in snap is not taking rapists, pedophiles and murderers off the rolls. this is about going after poor people. we have an amendment that goes after pedophiles, rapists and murderers to go off of stamp but not those that receive crop insurance, subsidies. it's incredible here. it was the republicans' idea to have sequestration. it was republicans in this house that passed sequestration. i give you credit that at least snap was exempted. it was exempted from sequestration and from simpson-bowles because it was thought to balance the budget on the backs of poor people was a rotten and cruel thing to do. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. lujan grisham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized for one minute.

ms. lujan grisham: mr. speaker, thank you. i rise in opposition of the rule and the bill because i am appalled by the proposed cuts to the food stamp program. to ow how important it is america's farmers and ranchers and new mexico's farmers and ranchers. i cannot support it. for the past week i've joined dozens of my colleagues in the snap challenge, to take a walk in the shoes of the over 442,000 new mexicans, half of which are children that have to eat less than on $4.50 every day to show just how devastating any cuts to the food stamp program would be. nearly one in three children in new mexico are chronically hungry. it's the worst in the nation. it's unconscionable and these cuts make it worse. in addition to the snap cuts this bill cuts funding for

nutrition education programs that teach snap recipients how to stretch their dollars further and feed their families nutritious food. new mexico farmers, ranchers and consumers need and deserve a farm bill, but this cut, this bill is morally wrong, it's cruel and it's reckless, harming children, seniors and the disabled and veterans in the process. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. years ago in a now-famous film, edward r. murl for cbs produced a program called "hunger in america." it described 100,000 residents of san antonio, mostly latino, who were hungry all the time. and the indifference of some

local leaders to their plight. this spring, with the inspirational leadership of rod and patty radel, we rewatched that film, discussed the progress and outlined the remaining challenges. in one west side zip code we still have 40% of the population in poverty and over a third relying on snap. we cannot snap our fingers and snap away that poverty, but if we make these cuts five times larger than what the united states senate approved, we will snap away food security for many needy families. people like daniellea who lost her job and relies on snap to feed her young daughter. in san antonio and austin, a public-private partnership across this nation involves esponsible citizens like h.e.b. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: working together with local entities to see that

there's food security. but without snap they cannot do their job. this bill has very little to do with reform and everything about denying a vital lifeline to schoolchildren and to poor americans across this country. let us reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to remind the young gentleman from austin, texas, that he'll have a chance to vote on this and then we can make a determination, but it's pedophiles, murderers, rapists, those who have -- should have enough money not to have government assistance, that's what we're trying to do here and he'll have a chance to decide that today. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, congressman rodney d. davis, a member of the ag and transportation and infrastructure committee, the gentleman from taylorsville,

illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from texas. i will say that my hometown has no s. it's taylorville but, hey, mr. sessions has been there, so thank you very much for your time spent in that community and thank you very much for the time today. i rise today in steadfast support of h.r. 1947, the farm bill, thanks to the leadership of chairman lucas and ranking member peterson we've crafted a farm bill that provides five years of certainty, cuts $40 billion and closes loopholes in the snap program and preserves crop insurance as the key risk management tool to our producers. ag has been a bright spot for this economy, for every $1 billion in agriculture exports, it supports nearly 8,000 american jobs. the district i represent is home to a.d.m., the university of illinois, the farm progress show, g.s.i. and kraft foods.

from the farm to the classroom to the table, agriculture is a crucial economic driver in the 13th district of illinois. i'd also like to quickly highlight two amendments i authored which were included in the farm bill. the first one would provide the agricultural community with the place at the table when the e.p.a. considers regulations impacting agriculture. this is how we stop regulations from coming to the table that want to regulate milk spills like oil spills from the exxon valdez. they don't make sense and the department of agriculture deserves a seat at the table to tell them that. i also had a bipartisan seed amendment that removes duplicative layers of e.p.a. regulations at our ports to ensure we don't face shortages of seeds in the midwest. lastly, i want to talk about another vital title to this bill. the area that i represent has the university of illinois, and those of us who are fortunate enough to represent land grant universities know that they are the bedrock of agricultural

research. with this farm bill, we are re-authorizing university research and continuing the agricultural and food research initiative within the national institute for food and agriculture. research through afri benefits the entire world and i'm proud of the research that they've done through this program. it is aimed at improving food security, achieving more efficient crop production and promoting animal health through live stock genome sequencey. we can avoid the uncertainty of year-long extensions that reform nothing and spend more money. this farm bill is well thought out, contains critical reforms and benefits all americans. vote yes on this farm bill. i yield back, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i have great respect for the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the rules committee, and i appreciate his kurt cisin the rules committee

yesterday -- courtesies in the rules committee yesterday. but i have to object with the way he's characterizing those people who are on snap. demonizing and stereotyping people on snap as rapists, pedophiles and murderers is wrong. please don't do that. these are people that are law-abiding citizens, good people. they've fallen on good times and millions and millions of these people work for a living, but they earn so little that they still qualify for snap. so i have to -- i have to interject that because, you know, these people don't deserve to be demonized. they deserve a helping hand. i'd like unanimous consent to insert in the record at this time from governor andrew cuomo opposing these cuts in the farm bill. at this point i'd like to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i'd yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from

new york, mr. meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. meeks: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. we have a statement that says, give us your poor, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to be free. we have poor people here yearning for food. now, i have heard my very good friend from texas talk about rapists and murderers, etc. but the community -- but the congressional budget office, it talks about 200,000 children who will be cut off from the school lunch program. now, i know, 200,000, that's not democrats talking about, it it is the congressional budget office that is talking about, and we as a country should be focused on the least of these. i think you judge a country by how you take care of the poor. here we have clear evidence from

an impartial group of about 200,000 children and hundreds of thousands of elderly individuals who will go hungry if we cut this $20.5 billion away. this is what this is all about. we talk about the future of america. well, somebody within that 200,000 children who are hungry, who will not have the ability to learn because their stomachs will be crying out for some food, could be the person that could take us where we want to go as a nation. but what are we doing? in the name of saving money, which we are not, we're turning our backs on these children, on the elderly who have worked hard, many of whom came in. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. meeks: your poor and your hungry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas.

mr. sessions: mr. speaker, if i could inquire upon the time remaining on both sides, please, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 16 minutes. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 16 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the gentleman from new york who is a very dear friend of mine spoke very eloquently about this bill. i will tell you that the supplemental nutritional assistance program known as snap is designed to ensure that the neediest americans are able to help themselves with food for them self and their families -- themself and their families. i care very much about people who are disabled, seniors and those who are having problems. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any member who did not think that reforming this program is also the right thing to do. and this program was reformed in

the agriculture committee. and that's the text that we're bringing here today. republicans and democrats together, working together, looking at the problem and trying to make sure that prioritization is done. but they also recognize this, that in the past decades, snap payments, otherwise known as food stamps, have increased by almost 300%. 00% is nonsustainable. a 300% increase puts huge responsibilities on public policy. and this is why republicans have been offering ideas and we continue to about jobs and job growth. this is why republicans see the terrible polite that the

american family -- plight that the american family and the american people are in, trying to have jobs that are available in their hometown. and this goes to the responsibility of all elected officials, not just members of congress. but mayers and governors -- m.i.a.ers and governors and -- mayors and senators and governors and, mr. speaker, presidents. people who were elected officials, who need to understand that increasing food stamps of 300% over 10 years should be a national disgrace. we're not trying to take advantage of those who are on it. they're on it because they can't find work. they cannot find an opportunity because of public policies that make work harder to find because

of rules and regulations out of this body and the federal government that are creating circumstances on employers to where they don't go employ people. ed about this for years. we said when we got into obamacare, this will cause a tremendous loss of jobs. the c.b.o., we're talking about this organization, c.b.o., predicted the same thing. well, by golly, we can look ahead and see exactly where europe is. and europe is going through what is a tragedy, where young people cannot find jobs. . is a international disgrace you see riots across europe. mr. speaker, we better be smart enough to recognize that we better reform our policies not

just in agriculture policies, but economic policies. economic policies that help people, sure, to get an education, but then a thriving marketplace. not just through trade but also through policies of this country. our leaders, members of congress, governors, vice presidents, presidents and senators need to focus on this. we need jobs. we need job creation. we need the opportunity for every member of congress to understand how jobs are forming -- are formulated. how jobs are then formulated, created and then saved. and we've got a group of people that are in washington that i think fail to look at the ramifications of long-term

unemployment to our country. they, i think, are more interested in what we're going to do for people who are having tough times. so, i'm not here to vilify people. i'm here to say, i suffer with you because i know them all over our country. i've seen them. not just in taylorville, illinois, but across this country. so, what we're doing here today is bigger than just snap. it's larger than just the agriculture bill. it is how are we going to create a public policy that we involve all elected officials to understand about jobs, job creation, rules and regulations and that we do not follow europe , that we admit that europe is the problem, not the answer. that we go back to the american

dream, the formulation of hard work, the formulation of creation of jobs and, yes, i'll say it, even people making money so they can employ more people and give more wages. the free enterprise system. that's really the underpinning of what this whole argument is about today. a creation of a policy in this country that is about helping people that need help and about creating economic opportunity for a vast number of other people and making our country and the american dream work. that's what the republican party is for, that's why we're here today. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, just a couple of points to some of the things the gentleman from texas said. he talked about the increased numbers of people who are on snap. the reason why is because we've

had a difficult economy. we had the worst recession since the great depression. lots of people lost work. lots of people are underemployed right now. that's why. and c.b.o. tells us that, you know, as we look to the future, as the economy gets better, the number of people on snap goes down. so, you know, this is there for people who fall on hard times. that's why the numbers have increased and they're going to go down. the gentleman talks about the -- that this bill somehow represents reform. this is not about reform. when you come up with reforms, we deliberate. and in the agriculture committee , in the subcommittee on nutrition, do you know how many hearings there were on snap? zero. none. in the full committee, do you know how many hearings there were on snap? zero, none. none. and then the language appears in the bill that we have before us in a markup. if you really want reform you

have to listen to people. you have to deliberate. that's what hearings are for. you know, we have to reach out and figure out how to make this program better. i'm all for making this program better. but that's not what this is about. so let's not have anybody be under the misimpression that this is about reform. this really is about trying to find an offset, you know, to be able to pay for all the other things and to try to use this to help kind of balance the budget. we're not going after big agri-business, we're not going after crop insurance, what we're doing is going after poor people. they don't have superpacs. hey don't have big lobbyists out here. so there's no political repercussions. that's what this is about. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from florida, a leader on this issue, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend from massachusetts. i'd like to just highlight a point that he just made, that my friend from texas and everyone ppedses and that is that of

course snap payments increased during the recession. it is supplemental nutrition. ands that sum nenl -- supplemental nutrition assistance that kept people out of poverty. the majority ruled out of order my amendment to the farm bill to ensure families relying on snap could skip fewer meals and buy healthier food. contrary to my colleague's claims, snap is not too generous and processed food from the dollar store can't replace fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and the protein needed in a healthy diet. so, as the republican majority prepares to vote to kick two million americans off of snap, let's remember what they're not voting for. what they're not voting for today and what they've not voted for one single day in this congress. the g.o.p.'s not voting for jobs. they're not voting to raise the minimum wage so that full-time

workers can actually feed their kids without snap. they're not voting to invest in education so that children have a better shot at success. they're not voting to create new jobs by investing in newports and new bridges -- newports and new bridges and new roads -- new ports and new bridges and new roads. my friends on the other side of the aisle are not voting to reduce poverty and hunger and they're not voting to build an economy where working families can get ahead and don't have to scrape by on snap benefits. the democratic plan for reducing snap spending -- create jobs, build a strong economy and stop punishing poor people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: thank you. you know, i wasn't able to

attend my usual congressional women's bible study this morning . but i'm still feeling the command of the scripture. and so today as we begin crucial of the house farm bill -- consideration of the house farm bill, the farm bill that takes $20 billion from the hungry and cuts to snap, $20 billion from the place of fellow americans who are struggling to feed themselves, even with this meager benefit, i am holding in mind the words of jesus from the gospel of matthew. truly i tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. in my communities alone, 145,000 people rely on this benefit. over half of them are children. this bill takes food from their mouths. i hope all my colleagues will remember what that means.

and join me in supporting the mcgovern amendment, to reverse these cuts or else vote down this immoral bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, there are a number of issues that the house will be considering today as a result of amendments, ideas that come to not just the committee and some that are in the bill and some that are amendments against the bill, and i'd like to, if i can, speak on one of those amendments at this time and this amendment is amendment number 194 and it's offered by the gentleman who is the former chairman of the committee and now the chairman of the committee on judiciary, mr. goodlatte, and it's co-sponsored by a number of members of this house, including the gentleman, david scott, chris collins of new york, david scott of georgia, chris collins of new york, mr. moran, mr.

duffy, mr. poe less, mr. coffman, mr. meeks, ms. lee, ms. degette, mr. issa, and myself. and the essence of what this is all about is it would repeal the dairy market subsidization program and this program serves as a supply-and-control mechanism which distorts the private markets through which government intervention takes place and which unnecessarily fixes prices. as a result, american families pay higher prices for milk products and american dairy exports are unnecessarily limited. and this amendment, which i speak of, 194, known as the goodlatte amendment, would replace the stabilization program with a voluntary margin insurance program, allowing producers to effectively manage

their risk without unnecessary government intervention. this government intervention that will simply rise prices for consumers. it's an important amendment. it's drawn a lot of attention, and i would like to stand up and offer my support, since i will not be here probably for the discussion of the bill at the time that the amendment comes up. i lend my support because i think this is one of the most critical pieces to put the free market and the opportunities for reducing cost, bettering the services and products that are available and helping keep america in the export market to where we're more competitive in the world marketplace. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense free market amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter to the congress from massachusetts governor patrick opposing the cuts that are contained in the farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. mcgovern: at this time it's my pleasure to yield to another leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman who has been such a tremendous leader and head of our hunger caucus in the house of representatives. hunger in america, think of that. not. ht to be a this is the richest country in the world and yet one out of four of our children in this country is considered to be food insecure. that means that there are nights in this country where tens of thousands of children go to sleep hungry, american children. and so despite what the gentleman from texas may say about the compassion for these children, two million people will be cut off of the food

stamp program, and not all of them are rapists and murderers. they are children. they are senior citizens. they are people who go to work every day and yet can't afford to eat. i'm just finishing a week of living on the average food stamp or snap budget. $31.50 a week, $4.50 a day. you can spend $4.50 a day at -- for one coffee at a starbucks. it's not easy to live on that. that is the average food stamp benefit. you know, it's just inconceivable to me that anyone has come to congress with the idea that they would be willing to take food out of the mouths of hungry children, because it's not just the snap program but it's also school lunch programs, school breakfast programs. 200 children are going to be cut off of those programs.

re you kidding me? this is what we're going to do. this is what the majority is going to vote for to do in our country. these are working people often who have come over a rough time. i talked to a woman on snap who said she saw it as a trampoline. she was able to get over a rough spot in her life for herself and her children through the snap program. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. ms. schakowsky: voting for this cut is immoral and wrong. i ask we vote against the farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has seven minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank

you, mr. speaker. i rise today on behalf of the more than 47 million americans who rely on nutrition assistance and in opposition strongly to the deep, unnecessary and cruel cuts to these anti-hunger programs in the farm bill. the supplemental nutrition assistance program is one of our nation's most effective tools for lifting children, seniors and disabled citizens out of poverty. snap is a lifeline for low-income and working americans and their families. mr. speaker, i speak in defense of the most basic elements of america's safety net that regardless of circumstance no american should go hungry. these deep drastic cuts mean that two million americans risk falling through the safety net. some 210,000 children may go hungry throughout the school day. an additional 850,000 households will have less food on their table. in my home state, nearly one million south floridians don't know where their next meal will

come from. an astonishing 300,000 of them are children. it is inexcusable for this congress to try to balance the budget on the backs of hungry children and their families. we know that these are short lived. when americans are food insecure they are likely to be anemic and have vitamin a and protein deficiencies which lead to more largely, more costly health issues which we have to pay for. when children go to school on an empty stomach we cripple their potential. we are hurting our nation's future for these severe burdens on these needy families. this is not a way to find a balanced approach. these cuts can he fine the mind set of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. it is shameful to tell the american people when they fall on tough times they're on their own. with these cuts we are limiting their potential, risking their health and leaving our fellow americans rising with hunger. it is immoral. the authors of this bill should

be ashamed. i urge my colleagues to oppose the $20 billion in cuts to knew frigs programs in this bill -- nutrition programs in this bill, support the mcgovern amendment, oppose the rule and the farm bill. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentlewoman from florida. i do resemble that mark. i helped put this bill together and i'm proud of it. we did it on a bipartisan basis. but we also did it in a way to try and encourage a marketplace that will become more vibrant, that will ensure that farms and farmers and families and rural areas will not only survive tough times but be able to seen an advantage for working hard. people who are farmers and ranchers get up early and go to bed late. they represent people of our

country. they are the bedrock of not just men and women, their children who go serve in our military, but there are people who care about basic american values. in a larger sense, what this farm bill is doing is trying to find a way in its place, in all the policy that we do to take care of people properly in this country who are the neediest but to also ensure that we prioritize it. there are a lot of people that are my friends that are democrats that talk about this country is a rich and powerful country. well, we are not as rich or as powerful as we used to be. in the last five years we've seen us diminish in not only stature and power but employment. we are falling behind because of policies in washington, d.c. this bill is about empowering people that are in real-life america. they call it flyover country.

it is to help farmers, ranchers, communities to deal with these issues. we're for job creation and job growth. so i hope the larger message is we need jobs in this country. let's not just take this as just an isolated incidence and say just the farm bill but also the creation of jobs and job creation. 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. g.d.p. less than 2%. where literally our country is not growing to sustain the newest generation of americans who go to school, who go to college, technical school, who come out and have -- want to have a bright future. we are becoming more like europe. we're becoming -- we're beholden to a government that's bigger and more powerful and one which drives entrepreneurship, individual responsibility out of the way. and it's some of these policies that led to a 300% increase in

people who are on food stamps over the last two -- 10 years. we're trying to deal with the problem. i think we'll do it in a bipartisan way and i have confidence this bill is on the right pathway. some may oppose that. some may not like the bill. i respect that. i respect the gentlewoman from florida, but i do resemble that remark and i think our product is good. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. brownley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the rule and urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule. i'm very disappointed my amendment was not made in order, a solution that was both simple and responsible. it would restore desperately needed snap funding, protect vital programs, ranchers and

growers rely on and welfare for big oil and responsibly reduce the deficit. by ending wasteful tax breaks for big oil, my amendment would help more than 68,000 families in ventura county and families across the country struggling to keep food on the table without cutting programs that california ranchers and farmers depend on like agricultural research, disease and pest control, rural development and conservation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. pingree: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding me time. i thank my colleagues who spoke against the cuts to the snap program. this will have a devastating effect on my home state. just over a week ago speaker boehner promised a fair and open debate on the farm bill and said, quote, if you have ideas on how to make the bill better, bring them forward. let's have the debate and vote on them. lots of people brought ideas forward. ideas that would help farmers in states like mine. but we aren't getting a chance to debate those ideas here today. the biggest programs in this bill, the revenue loss program, the price loss programs that benefits big farmers, they won't do anything for the farmers in my states or many others. they won't make them more vital, as the chair on the floor has said today. that's not going to happen. a bipartisan amendment that i submitted, and this is just one of the 117 denied consideration, would benefit

diversified farmers in every state. this amendment has zero cost and is supported by over 400 organizations from 46 states. it's an amendment that would help the tens of thousands of small businesses that did $5 billion in local food sales last year. i'm glad we will get to vote on the amendment to roll back the outrageous snap cuts in this bill, but i am very, very disappointed that local food and sustainable agriculture has been left out of the farm bill debate. this is not an open process. i urge all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks colleagues to vote against the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. in fact, the gentlewoman is correct, speaker, speaker of the house, the gentleman, mr. boehner, did make a public statement and he did indicate that we would be open for business at the rules committee . i've attempted to do everything

necessary and proper to make sure that not only a fair hearing was held but that all the people who would choose to come and make an amendment available that the committee was available. we listened. we asked tough questions. we did, but we asked questions that i considered to be fair. i don't think one witness was discouraged at all from taking all the time they needed but respected that we had some 200 amendments to go through. . we did not rush. we took our time. we were very deliberative. we worked with the committee on a bipartisan basis. we consulted others. and we received feedback and we have a model that i believe many people, those who -- if you had come up to the rules committee yesterday would say, received a fair hearing. good process. i'm for this bill. i think it's fair, balanced.

i think it's a good representation of what i'm willing to put my name on as a product to present to this house. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm delighted to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, miss speier -- ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for his profound leadership on this issue. i rise in opposition to this rule because there are many amendments not made in order, but there's plenty of pork in this farm bill to make a dead pig squeal. and i want to talk about just some of the silly things that are in this bill that were made in order as amendments for us to take up this afternoon, putting cuts on research and development. or amendment to direct the secretary of agriculture to conduct an economic analysis of

the existing market for u.s. atlantic spiney dogfish. an amendment i had that would have given veterans waiting for disability claims to be processed the opportunity for snap as a disabled person, was not made in order. and another amendment that would have made crop insurance subsidies that taxpayers in this country pay some $9 billion a year, transparent, not in order. now, there are 26 companies in this country, agribusinesses, that are receiving more than $1 million a piece in crop insurance premiums, we don't get to know who they are. and that was an amendment i had that was not made in order, even though grover norquist thinks it should be made in order. environmental working group thinks it should be made in order. but we are more interested in

- lking about- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 second. ms. speier: we are more interested in talking about the atlantic spiney dogfish or penny crest than dealing with issues around veterans accessing snap and whether or not the public has the right to know when we spend $9 billion a year on premium payments for crop insurance. just another name for what has historically been a farm subsidy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm down to the bear minimum of time i have left. i'm going to reserve my time until i close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may inirchoir -- may i inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has left? mr. session: i am at the bare minimum, i will close when the gentleman is prepared to do so. mr. mcgovern: i am prepared to close. i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at this

time a letter that was sent to members of congress by dozens and dozens of organizations manging from the afl-cio to the alliance to end hunger, to bread for the world, to feeding america, the jewish council for public affairs, a jewish response to hunger, mom's rising. share our strength. i go on and on. i would like it to be put in the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts has four minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, this is an important debate we are going to have, that we are having and will have on this farm bill. it's about our values. and the question is is it acceptable to try to balance the budget or pay for other programs to benefit wealthy special interests by cutting a program that benefits the poorest of the poor in this country? a program called snap. the people on snap i want to lee mind my colleagues -- remind my colleagues are good, decent honest people. they are our neighbors. they are people who have fallen

on hard times. they are people who are working. working full-time and still not earning enough to be able to not qualify for public assistance. those are the people we are talking about. those are the people that would be adversely impacted with a $20.5 million cut. i would also say to my colleagues who say we can't afford to support our social safety net, can't afford to support anti-hunger programs, i want them to know that hunger costs america a great deal. the center for american progress did a study that said it costs us $168.5 billion a year in health care costs, avoidable health care cost, disability, lost wages, reduced learning capacity. hungry children who go to school don't learn. that's why it's particularly cruel that over 200,000 kids will lose their access to free lunch and breakfast at school. those kids will go to school hungry. you don't learn if you're hungry. we all talk about preparing the

new generation and making sure our kids have all the opportunities. well, but food is as essential to learning as that textbook is. here we are going to embrace a bill that cuts 200,000 people, 200,000 kids off the school breakfast and lunch program. cutting snap will make hunger worse. and it will have long-term consequences. let me just finally say we are going to have an amendment coming up shortly after we vote on the rule that i have sponsored along with dozens and dozens of other members here in the house of representatives to restore the cuts in snap. i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think long and hard before you vote. we don't have to do this. we don't have to have a -- the price of a farm bill should not be making more people hungry in america. yet that's what -- that's the price that is being exacted through this bill. we can do so much better. we are a better country than

this. we are a better country than this. let's not go down this road. this used to be a bipartisan effort. bob dole and bill emerson championed some of the anti-hunger programs that have kept people fed. that have invested people who are now very successful. don't turn your backs on that tradition. and to my democratic colleagues, i remind you that if we do not stand with people who are hungry, with people who are poor and vulnerable, then what the hell do we stand for? this is about our values. so, mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule because a lot of amendments that should have been made in order were not. i appreciate the courtesies that my colleague, mr. sessions, afforded to us in the rules committee. i know he tried very hard to include as many amendments as possible. i appreciate that very much. i appreciate my amendment being made in order. i think we could have done a little bit better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and please vote yes on the mcgovern amendment. if that should fail, do not send

a farm bill forward that will make -- throw two million people off the rolls of snap and 200,000 kids off of free breakfast and lunch programs. we can do much better than that. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, is most kind. he's most kind in not only how he presented his ideas today and perhaps even some opposition, and i respect that. i respect him for not only standing up almost every day i see him for not just what he believes in, but caring about people. my party cares about people, too. the republican party cares very much for people. not only those that have fallen on tough times, but those who are friends and neighbors. those who we don't know, who live in our communities, who are hurting, who are actually having tough times feeding their kids,

finding work, paying superintendent loans, getting things done in their community that will better their community. following the guidelines that they have always have about tomorrow will be a better day for america and americans. these are tough times. but what we have done and our mission today is to take a farm bill that passed out of the committee that's very equally divided, 36-10. this committee that looked at not just the policy on foreign policy but has held hearing after hearing around this country, some 40 years over the last few years, on the farm bill, to get it prepared and readied for this floor. to prepare for the rules committee where both republican and democrat members of that committee came and thoughtfully presented their ideas. offered support for the bill once again that passed 36-10 in committee. and moved new ideas and allowed new ideas to be debated on this

floor. not every amendment was made in order. i admit that. did i want that as a goal to get closer? you bet i did. but we allowed the debate and the opportunity up at the rules committee and then are trying to craft a bill that is in line with what the crafters wanted from farm polcy. they are the people that understand this best. they are the people that know the impact. and so i'm proud of the product. i think we bettered it. i think we made it better up in the committee. i think we made it better here. the gentleman, mr. mcgovern, is a part of that process. as chairman of the rules committee i have the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the mark that we make, that the presentation that we put on this floor, and most of all that the legislation that allows full debate in content is important. what we are going to do is try and worry about a new farm bill that we can move forward.

i am supporting this bill. i hope we'll vote yes on the underlying legislation. i yield the balance of my time and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. sessions: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on the adoption of house resolution 271, if ordered, and approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 187. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239. the nays are 177. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 86 rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put denove heo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from georgia. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 275. the nays are 139 with one voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 1947, pursuant to house resolution 271, amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 113-117 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lucas: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

general leave is granted. pursuant to house resolution 271 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1947. will the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, kindly ake the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1947 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the reform and continuation and other ural programs for the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee

of the whole rose tuesday, june 18, all general debate had expired. pursuant to house resolution 271, no further general debate shall be in order. in lieu of the amendments recommended by the committees on agriculture and judiciary printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five -minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 113-14. modified by amendment printed house -- in part a of report 113-117. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except those printed in part b of the house report 113-117 and amendments

en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 271. except as specified in the order of the house of today. each amendment printed in part b of the house report 113-117 shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. may be withdrawn by its proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee of agriculture or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part b of house report 113-117, not earlier disposed of amendments en bloc

shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be subject for a demand of the division of the question. the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may assert -- insert a statement in the congressional record immediately before the disposition of the amendment en bloc. it is now in order to consider the amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113- 117. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to resolution 271, the gentleman

from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the entleman from massachusetts. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that at the end of my debate that the list of co-sponsors to the mcgovern amendment number 1 be printed. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. the chair: mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i want to -- mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i want to yield mr. nolan for unanimous consent request. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the mcgovern amendment and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i also want to yield to the other

member from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the mcgovern and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and add my statement to the record. the chair: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. chair. this is a debate about priorities. this would restore the $20.5 billion in the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap, formally known as food stamps. it would restore those cuts by eliminating or reducing the excessive subsidies to the highly profitable big agribusiness and reduce the deficit $12 billion beyond the base bill. at a time when millions of americans are dealing with unemployment, with poverty and hunger, the farm bill before us today would cause two million our neighbors to lose their benefits. it could kick 210,000 kids off

the free school program. that's a rotten thing to do. it will only force poor people to fill out a few more forms, to jump through a few more hoops to get the assistance they need they qualify for. aren't we a country that reaches out to those in needs? when americans see their neighbors having a hard time, ? n't we show up to help our churches are stretched to the limits. values and priorities. critics of the snap program talk about waste, fraud and abuse but snap is one of the most efficiently run government programs we have, and some of the errors in snap are a result of people getting less help than they qualify for. the business bill will cut $2 billion per year from a program that helps struggling families to put food on the table. $2 billion. i remind my colleagues we spend $2 billion every single week propping up a corrupt karzai government in afghanistan. some people who have no problem

with nation building in afghanistan turn their backs on nation building here at home. values and priorities. 50 million americans struggle with hunger. 17 million of those are our children. hunger costs our nation dearly. over $100 billion a year in avoidable health care costs, lost productivity and hungry kids who can't learn in school. snap is one tool to address hunger in america. like every other human endeavor it is not perfect. it can be improved, but it will be shortsighted and cruel to make hunger worse in america which is exactly what this bill would do. if we want to reduce spending on snap, the best way to do that is to strengthen our economy, to invest in putting people back to work. values and priorities, mr. chair. let us stay true to our values of compassion and decency and justice. let us give priority to those among us who are struggling in these hard times, to the least of these. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i recognize the subcommittee chairman, mr. king, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i thank the chairman of the ag committee for yielding and i want to thank him for his leadership on this bill. this is a carefully balanced bill we have. i don't challenge the convictions of the gentleman from massachusetts, we've had enough discussion to know we have a difference of opinion without disagreeable personalities. when i came to congress a little over a decade ago i was looking at a growth in then food stamps. the number i memorized at the time is there were 19 million people on food stamps. that was a will the -- a lot of people. our population hasn't grown so much we should see 48 million

people on it now. each time you add another brick to the wall, it's another barrier to people who might go out and succeed. we are of the same heart here. we don't want people who need them and people who deserve them to go without snap benefits. on the other hand, we don't want to hand these out to people that are gaming the system, so to speak. so if we tight then qualifications down on snap, and we've done so for a numb of reasons, one of them is reports of a neon sign up on a tattoo parlor, we take e.b.t. cards. and the reports of an individual who bailed himself out of jail with an e.b.t. card. i don't think we want to borrow money from the chinese to fund such a thing. i think those people can figure out how to bail themselves out and how to pay for their own tattoos. instead we tighten this down it's a savings of $20.5 billion. it's a tough enough negotiation to get to that point. i don't know what the gentleman would say is enough, maybe i

don't know what i would say is too lit. but someplace in between his opinion and mine is where we settled today on this $2 -- on this $20.5 billion that came out of this top line that is roughly 80% of the overall benefits in this bill. it's carefully balanced, it's carefully negotiated, it's something that's had cooperation with the ranking member on as well. and i think it's an important thing for taos understand that you can't simply be spending advertising dollars out there to sign more people up on food stamps. that's what our secretary of agriculture has been doing. we eliminate the advertisement to sign people up on food stamps. that's a good thing. if people need it, they'll find out how to sign up without somebody knocking on their door, advertising on the newspaper or radio or tv. we tighten up the system, we keep the resourcers to the people that need them and we reduce this thing, however marginally, it's a 2.5% reduction in this massive growth from 29 million to 48 million.

that's not too much to ask. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the in reason we have seen an uptick in the number of people on assistance is because we are coming out of the recession. the gentleman says it's a carefully negotiated, carefully studied compromise, we didn't have a single hearing on it, not in his subcommittee, not in the full demesm people we're talking about is people who are good, honorable, decent americans who are going to lose billions. the c.b.o. says two million people will lose their benefits. these aren't targeted at people who abuse the system. these are just two million people who lose their benefits off the free breakfast and lunch. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the

gentleman, mr. ribble, two minutes. mr. ribble: i thank the chair, chairman lucas for yielding here. snap is an incredibly important program in the united states. i don't think there's anybody that i've had on my side who disagrees with that. i appreciate mr. mcgovern's position that we need to make sure hungry children in this country get food to eat. we want them to have good, healthy meals. however, the data doesn't support on behalf of the taxpayer that we continue to increase funding for snap. and in fact, if you follow the red line here, that's unemployment in america. you see during the recession, unemployment went up, as did snap spending, almost exactly at the same ratio. when -- then when unemployment -- as the economy began to recover, unemployment went down, poverty went down, snap funding went up. in fact, in 2008, to 2011, snap

funding went up 119% while poverty went up only 16%. between 2010 and 2011, poverty actually went down while snap spending went up. it's not just an either-or, mr. chairman, that we can either provide food for the poor or charge the taxpayer money. we need to do both but as fiduciary of taxpayers' dollars we must do it reasonably. we don't want any child to go without food. but we recognize that the economy has gone recover since 2009, while we were spending only $53 billion on snap, if only is the appropriate word. today we're going to be spending $82 billion on snap, unemployment went from 10.2% in 2009 down to 7.6% today. thunder bay sis of -- i wonder at what point could we ever have snap go down? here's the reality. we keep talking about $20

billion. next year work a $2 billion cut annually, we won't even roll snap back effectively one year. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schrader: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i believe strongly we've got a debt and deficit problem. i think most americans agree with that but i don't think most americans would agree that we balance our deaf soint the backs of the most vulnerable people out there, particularly the children. as alluded to a moment ago by my good friend from wisconsin, half of the people on food stamps are children. children. they didn't get a job. they're still hungry. the other point i think is well known by americans that while unemployment may have gone down, there's a lot of underemployed people. and there's a lot of people who have given up searching for work

because the recession lingers. the real world is that the snap program is a lagging indicator. people struggle, they try to keep their job they go into savings, they rely on friends. and then after several years, they lose their house, maybe they've already lost their job, and then they need food stamps. i think it's egregious that we would deny them that. now there may be some inefficiencies in the program. we've been working on that for years. there's an error rate in my home state of oregon that we're proud to say we have driven down. we were guilty of not overseing the program. that's been driven down. we should be rewarding good behavior, not penalizing it at the end of the day. i still have over 20% of my folks in oregon that are on food stamps. that has not changed. that's not because they're glad to be on food stamps. my folks want a job. they want to feed their own families. but the real world is, this was

a horrible recession, the worst recession since the great deprefplgs you don't balance that budget on the backs of these kids. if we had a chance to vote on another food stamp bill that may have gotten down to the senate levels of reductions, i think you wouldn't see some folks here worried about it. but this is the only game in town, trying to protect vulnerable americans. there's other ways to cut the program, the direct payments we did in the ag committee, that's the way to go about it. not with the most vulnerable population. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. the changes made at snap are directed at reducing fraud, not at those in true need. inefficiencies we have been dealing with for year, we have a chance to address those inefficient -- inefficiencies now not in five

years. congress tells the american people that taxpayers should support fraudulent payments. are we seriously debating a 2% reduction that centers on fraud elimination and ensuring those that -- and instead ensuring those we want to help qualify. this eliminates advertising for food stamp, eliminates recrutement, bonuses and payments to lottery winners, all of which divert funds away from the program's actual goal. any individual can apply or reapply by simply meeting the income and asset requirements. these are simple, commonsense reforms that save taxpayers billions and continue to protect those truly in need. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record c.b.o. statement that shows the numb of people on snap going from 47 million to 34 million over the next 10 years. the chair: the gentleman's

request is covered by general leave. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is reckalized -- recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i thank him for his work in helping us live the bible here in the congress. he has been a relentless, dissatisfied, persistent champion for feeding the hungry in america and throughout the world. he is the living example, personification of the gospel of matthew and i appreciate your comments that you made earlier about priorities and the least of our brethren. i thank you, mr. mcgovern, for your leadership, day in and day out as chair of the task force on hunger and working with congresswoman delauro as an appropriator who shares your value on this subject. you both have been magnificent.

i thank you as a mom because we all have our motivation for going into politics or deciding that we're going to run for office and my motivation can be described in three words. the children, the children, the children. as a mother of five myself and as a grandmother, i know how children thrive when they have the attention, the love, the food, the care that they need. and it always is a wonderment to me that in this, the great etc. country that ever existed in the history of the world, that one in four or one in five children goes to sleep hungry at night. and so it's another wonderment to me why we would even have to have this conversation on the floor of the house as to whether we as a nation are prepared to feed our children. we're all familiar with the comment from the mouths of

babes. from the mouths of babes. it's usually followed with, sometimes, come gems. in this case, from the mouths of babes comes food. food to live, to be sustained, to be healthy, food to study and do well in school. food to have respect in their family and with their friends and all the rest. what's really interesting about it though, for all the sentiment involved about feeding the children of our country, it makes economic sense to do so as well. the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, says that rate increases of snap benefits is one of the two best options to boost growth and jobs in a weak economy. for every dollar invested in the

snap program, for every dollar invested in that initiative, $1.70 is injected into the economy for economic activity. this purchasing power, giving to families who will spend it immediately because this is a necessity, this purchasing power injects demands into -- demand into the economy, creating jobs. don't take it from me, the congressional budget office says this is one of the two best ways to boost growth. another economic aspect of this is, is that, as has been said over and over again, nearly 20 million children, 20 million children are the beneficiaries of food stamps. why do those families need food stamps? well, some of them are families that are making the minimum wage. in fact, if you are a family of four and you have two wage earn

-- two wage earners, mr. chairman, the income you make from two wage earners making the minimum wage still has you below the poverty line and eligible for food stamps. two wage earners making the minimum wage cannot afford to put food on the table, hence they qualify for food stamps. these food stamps in some ways are subsidizing an unfair minimum, too low minimum wage in our country, so in speaking of the children, the children, the hope that one of the other things we're able to do minimum wage, some of the people who want to cut two million families out of food stamps are the same people who are opposed to increasing the minimum wage. so it's a question of fairness, it's a question of decency, it's

a question of respect for all of od's children. it's also a question of doing the right thing, not only for the children, but for our economy. $1.70 of economic growth injected for every $1 spent on food stamps. now, to cut food stamps and therefore reduce that economic growth, might be considered one of the least smart ideas that you will hear here. but there's so much competition for that designation that it just fits comfortably among initiatives, to suppress the wages and to cut food stamps. it's all part of a package and it is not a pretty sight.

that's why, mr. mcgovern, your relentless, persistent, dissatisfied advocacy is such a beautiful thing in this arena where people think it's very -- take very lightly cutting two million people off of food stamps. i urge our colleagues to support the mcgovern amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back -- the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the ag committee has worked diligently in a bipartisan manner to craft these reforms to the food stamp program that this amendment would strip out totally. the argument that somehow we can food stamp our way into a great economy is a bit false in the sense that it doesn't reflect

that we're borrowing 40 cents of every $1 that we're putting into the food program. the families that the previous speaker spoke at will still remain on food stamps. if you qualify on the income and the asset side, you'll stay on the program. if you make too much money to qualify directly for food stamps, those are the folks who would be getting out of this, as part of the $20 billion that we'll save in this program. it's a 2% reduction. i'm hard-pressed to understand we can have a near 5% reduction in the beneficiaries by cutting only 2% of the spending. we'll trim it. much of the conversation you'll hear in justification for not going along with these reforms would sound like we're getting -- gutting and destroying the entire program. we are not. these are modest reforms that we believe are appropriate at this time and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and support what the bipartisan committee -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california -- i'm sorry, i want to yield one minute to the gentlelady

from california, ms. lee, who has been a champion on this issue and proud that she's here. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank congressman mcgovern for yielding but also for your tremendous leadership. not only in preserving our safety net but your tireless work to eliminate hunger which really should be an oxymoron in america. i'm a proud co-sponsor and rise in strong support of this amendment to safeguard hungry children and families across america. mr. chairman, this farm bill would make heartless and harmful cuts to our nation's front line defense against -- frontline defense against hunger, the snap program. oftentimes people need a safety net. a bridge over troubled watters to help them through difficult economic times. and yet these huge cuts come even while they preserve wasteful subsidies for huge agri-business who really don't need corporate subsidies to continue with their huge profits. taking away food from hungry children hurts their health, their educational outcome and

restricts their economic prospects for their entire adult lives and the federal government will end up paying more for their health care and their education and get less revenue from their taxes. as a former food stamp recipient, i know for a fact no one wants to be on food stamps. people want to work. may i have five sendings? people want to work -- may i have an additional five seconds? the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lucas: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, dr. yoho. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: i thank the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. speaker, i stand in opposition to mr. mcgovern's amendment because the amount removed from the food stamps program will not remove one calorie off of anyone's plate that deserves it. or requires this assistance. and i know the importance personally of having to go on food stamps. when my wife and i were first married, we were 19 1/2, the interest rates in the economy went to 20%. and we had to get on food stamps for a short period of time.

so i understand the need for those. but yet, let's look at the facts here. out of the whole bill of $940 billion being spent over 10 years, we're looking at that here, 80% of that goes to the food stamp program which is approximately $752 billion. 80% of the farm bill is going to that. only 20% is actually going to the farmers. and we've cut that drastically over the last couple of years. and so this is just a commonsense approach of reducing the amount of money that we're spending in this country. and i stand in opposition of this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized. govern govern can i -- that's

fine. -- mr. mcgovern: can i -- that's fine. ms. delauro: let me just say to my colleague a few minutes ago who was up on this floor and talking against the food stamp program and against the mcgovern amendment, i think it's important to note this is not my -- this is not my making this up, but this is an individual who has received almost $4.7 million in farm subsidies since 1995. including nearly $1.2 million in direct payment. now, i don't know whether that is a program that is means-tested, that's asset-tested and that has a cap on it. no, this is free money. for people who serve in this body. and these are the same folks who want to cut the food stamp program. i rise in strong support of this amendment, to replace those deep cuts. to the food stamp program. which is our nation's most important anti-hunger program. all across the country cities, suburbs, rural communities, from

the coast to the heartland, nearly 50 million americans are struggling with hunger and almost 20 million of them are our children. no part of the country is immune. we should not destroy what has been a longstanding bipartisan tradition to give crucial nutrition assistance. this is what this farm bill does. it cuts out the knewnition -- the nutrition program for two million people, a million of whom are children. and the research has shown us that the food stamp program is the most effective program pushing against the steep rise in poverty. 99% of recipients live under the poverty line. they're not getting $4.7 million in subsidies from the federal government. you want to talk about -- the food stamp program by the way, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about waste, fraud and abuse, this is a program with a 3.8% error

rate. i defy you to go to any other agency of the federal government and find that they have as low an error rate. you want to talk about a program that really ought to be challenged in this farm bill, let's take a look at the crop insurance program. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: look at the crop insurance program. 60% u.s. taxpayers pick up the cost of it. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. lucas: can i inquire how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma has three minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute. mr. lucas: that being the case, mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's worth noting that when the ag committee put this bill together, a bill which had bipartisan support, overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the process, we understood that reform had to be

achieved across the board. we have reforms in the commodity title, the direct payment program goes away. we have reforms in the conservation program, $6 billion worth of savings through reforms. and, yes, we address the nutrition title. we tried in good faith to pick programs that would not in the eyes of the committee as a whole create huge hardship on citizens. how did we do that? well, categorical eligibility. if you receive some other federal welfare benefit under present law, you automatically get food stamps. we simply say you have to apply. demonstrate your income, demonstrate your assets, if you qualify, we help you. but you've got to prove to qualify. now, some may argue about what those assets and income levels are but that's not the debate today. it's automatic food stamps.

something called liheap where a number of states use the flexibility of the 1996 law to say, we'll help you with your home heating and then you can automatically qualify for food stamps. there are actually some states that send out $1 to qualify for a fremont's worth of automatic food stamp. we simply say in the bill, states, if you want to do this, power to you, but put $20 a month out, buy more than just a cup or a pint of home heating oil, actually put something up that. saves about $8 billion. we tried very hard to come up with ways that would deny -- that would not, would not deny the needy the help that they need. but by the same token, make sure those who qualified got the help . that's only fair to the recipients who need help. it's only fair to their fellow citizens who pay for that help. we tried in the best way we could to achieve reform and to help those who need the help. now, will these c.b.o. numbers

be in fruition when it's all calculated? i suspect a number of people who receive automatic food stamps will be eligible, they'll fill out the paperwork, they'll demonstrate the need, they'll qualify. but i can only work with the c.b.o. numbers that are given to me under the rules of the house. and the rules say these two changes save $20.5 billion. half of the approximately $40 billion we save out of the overall farm bill. it's tough economic times, it's a challenging federal budget, we're trying to do the right thing, we're trying to do it in the most difficult of circumstances. i respect my friends, my colleagues. we just happen to disagree about how the policy will work. i sincerely believe the perspective i've offered is accurate. if my friends are accurate and i'm wrong, then we'll address this issue sometime in the very near future. if i'm right, then the people who need help will continue to get help, the treasury will have $20.5 billion of a $40 billion

package to spend in other places. thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i have one minute? is that right? the chair: the gentleman is rect correct. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman, because of prior cuts in the program already, even if we do nothing in terms of this farm bill, in terms of reducing snap, a family of three on average would lose about $30 a month in snap benefits. that's if we do nothing. they're already going to receive a reduction come november. then on top of that is what we have on this farm bill. c.b.o. says two million people will be thrown off the benefits. they say that over 200,000 kids will lose their free breakfast and lunch at school. i have great respect for chairman lucas, i wanted very much to support the bill he put together but to me this cut is too big and it's too harsh and it's going to hurt too many people. all of us came here to help people. we all came here to help our

constituents. rich and poor alike. but this here will hurt people. and that is why i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. this cut is too big. it is too harsh. we don't need to do this. we don't have -- the price for a farm bill should not be to make -- to result in more hunger in america. we can do so much better. our country is better than this. so i urge all my colleagues, republican and democrat, to come together, support this amendment , let's not make hunger worse in america. the chair: the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts are postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in . rt b of house report 113-117 for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 2, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. gibbs of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from ohio is ecognized. mr. gibbs: i rise to offer the fwibs-kind amendment that sets the price for all crops at 55% and changes the target price to 85% of farmers pay. that the time i reserve.

>> mr. chairman, i seek to claim time in opposition. the chair: you are recognized. or five minutes. mr. lucas: at this time -- the chair: the gentleman from ohio. at this time i yield -- mr. gibbs: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman, mr. kind. mr. kind: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. what mr. gibbs didn't point out is this would save $12 billion over 10 years by a more fiscally responsible approach, one we feel is market based and is economically feasible and one that maintains an important safety net for farmers if commodity prices do drop. but the price loss program as currently drafted will claim the programs necessary to ensure farm verse a safety net when the market collapses. instead the program in the farm

bill before us celts target prices so high that some commodities are guaranteed an 8% profit. we don't guarantee any other business in the country that type of profit margin other than crop insurance companies that are guaranteed a 14% profit under this bill. by setting a target price at this historically high level it will all but ensure a -- higher government payouts in the future. it will require government payouts for the five top commodity crops. rice alone would pay out $1,400 per hundred while the current rice is at $10.50 today. we're add thon additional price in an area where it's not economically needed or feasible. since farlers receive these payouts on planted ache sers we're encourage ullinging to overplant and plant on marginal lands that wouldn't be brought

into production because the losses would be covered. also given the fact that we're trying to work our way out of the w.t.o. complaint from brazil on the subsidy program this program septembers up another potential w.t.o. challenge. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: i yield myself the balance of my time. back in the 1995 farm bill, congress made a decision to move the programs to been -- to be more market oriented. as a past state farm bureau president and a farmer, when i talk to my farmer colleagues, they want the check to come from the market not the government my fear is, my concern is, that the target l will set the prices as representative kind said too high. it is possible, you know, let's

take corn, for example, we had a drought, saw the prices scoot up o high levels. weather moderates out, averages out over a several year period. it's possible we could see the price of corn come down and drop below the high set target rates and farmers could still be profitable, still be making money on a per bushel basis, yield has to be a factor. when off price loss coverage, yield isn't taken in. that's market distortion. and it's interesting to note that the organizations that support my amendment, the national corn growers, soybean associationmark national organizations and state organizations that represent thousands of farmers out there, strongly support my amendment as representative kind said, cuts $12 billion from the committee mark bill. you find that kind of osmed the reason is they don't want to go

back to the previous policies of 1995 where we had market distortion and farmers are planning -- planting for the program and the market ♪ dictating it and they never get out of that rut. another concern i have is w.t.o. concerns. when we change this to planted acres, direct benefits paid to planted acres, that's ripe for a w.t.o. complaint and trade war. that will increase, i believe, overplanting and the farmers reacting for the wrong reason, not the market reasons. so on that basis, mr. chairman, with the strong support of many of the national commodity organizations that represent thousands of farmers strongly do not want this and we can save taxpayers money and keep a market oriented bill and not expose the tax payers to risk. >> will the gentleman yield 30 seconds?

mr. gibbs: yes. . kind texas as someone -- mr. kind: as someone who has a lot of experience, the gentleman is correct, we are setting up subsidies that are not justifiable. i hope we can continue working with the leadership of the committee to try to make this right. i yield back. mr. gibbs: i think it is important that we have a safety net but it can't be at a level where prices are set at or close or even above the cost of production that distorts markets. but we need a safety net to protect american farmers, our rural communities, and to ensure we have the safest and most -- continue to have the safest and most affordable food supply in the world. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: if mr. gibbs is willing, i'd like to request

that he withdraw his amendment with my commitment that we continue to work on these issues as we move forward to produce an equitable and market-oriented farm bill. i yield to the gentleman for any response he might have. mr. gibbs: with that commitment, i will respectfully withdraw my amendment from consideration and i look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee and i yield back. mr. lucas: i appreciate the gentleman's time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- the mendment is withdrawn. pursuant to thed orer of the house of today, it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: part b, amendment number 55, printed in house report 113-117, offered by ms. herrera beutler of washington. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the the gentlewoman from washington, ms. herrera beutler and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from washington. ms. herrera beutler: thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. chairman. i'm here today to join in the effort to promote this farm bill and request that my amendment be added to it. i'm here to protect millions of jobs across the country. millions. 110,000 in my home state of washington alen. by doing something we don't hear much of in this chamber, particularly on this side of the aisle. i'm here to say, i agree with the e.p.a. with respect to treating forest roads, the e. pemplet a. has it right and has for nearly 40 years this bipartisan amendment i'm offer, i'm proud to offer

with my colleague curt schrader, codifies the rule that says mud and rock runoff from forest roads should not be categorized the same as industrial parking lots or factories. it makes no changes to the clean water act, nor does it restrict the e.p.a. from enforcing current law. in the recent ninth circuit court decision, a judge, not the e.p.a., decided this rule needed to be changed and directed the e.p.a. to require npds permits for all forest roads on public or private land. it really would have -- this ruling would have cost private federal and state and tribal landowners billions of dollars and it would have helped kill thousands of jobs across the country. fortunately, the u.s. supreme court ultimately overturned this ruling and believes the e.p.a.'s treatment of forest roads is the proper approach. however, extremist lawsuits continue to roll in and all of them are threltening the viability of forests by potentially costing private and public land owners millions in

unnecessary, unscientifically proven expenses. unless congress acts, our forests will remain under the atk of baseless lawsuits that serve no purpose in proect -- protecting our rivers, streams, waterways but are highly effective in killing real jobs, we're talking about jobs in wood product manufacturing, forest harvesting, forest management and the list goes on this provision enjoys a wide range of bipartisan support in both the house and senate. i urge my colleagues to stand with private landowners, job creators, republicans and democrats in congress, the administration, the supreme court, in supporting this amendment. i resthemb balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i climb the time in opposition though i'm in support f the amendment. the chair: without objection. >> i yield myself such time as i

may consume. this is a bill that's long overdue. i join in support of my colleague and friend from washington state to -- mr. slade -- mr. schrader: this legislation hopefully would not be necessary. as the gentlewoman alluded to, we have had a supreme court decision that would seem to indicate that the e.p.a. rule for the last 37 years has been a good rule. deed, agriculture, forestry, are classically not polluters, they're not a factory, not a municipality's sewer system, they're not polluters, emitters if you will. i think that's the way to look at this when off decision by the supreme court, i think it's time to verify that decision. the concern i have, and the reason why this legislation is necessary is that while it agreed that the rule should stand, it did not really rule on the merits of the issue, and we're already facing diation --

additional lawsuits from organizations that have a misguided view of what goes on in the forest system. i find it particularly egregious that when there's a great concern about forest runoff, agriculture runoff, into our streams and river that when the industry steps up and does the right thing by pushing culverts, making the roads safer and cleaner, dumping stuff onto the forest floor, not in the river they get pseudoand asked to come up with additional permits that would cost jobs and not help us get out of this great recession. so i am a strong proponent of this bill, i think it will get overwhelming support in this great august body and i urge an aye vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from washington. ms. herrera beutler: i yield to the gentleman from oregon. >> i thank my colleagues for their work thon, this is

extraordinarily important to men and women who work in the woods and the northwest across the united states. you heard for nearly four decades the environmental protection agency said that driving down a forest road was not the same as pumping raw sewage into the river. they're much different activities. that would prevent the federal government from subjecting forested communities and businesses to further costly permits for everyday activities like driving down a road. mr. walden: rural forested communities in the northwest have been hurting for a long time. those who live there we know about all the high unemployment rates. we know about the high poverty rates. we know about the percentage of kids on free and reduced lunch because of burdensome federal regulations that have shut down activity in our federal forest. lawsuits threat ton do this in our private forests as well. the last thing we need is more costly and lawsuit-prone regulations to impact rural community theans good people who live there that want the opportunity to work in the woods, raise their families and

grow their communities. passing this bipartisan amendment would provide certainty moving forward for rural forested communities, forest managers and the people who work in the woods. so i urge my colleagues to stand for jobs, stand for rural america, and vote for this bipartisan amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. ms. herrera beutler: i'd like to yield such time as he may consume. mr. lucas: i want to note for the record i support this bipartisan amendment, we should all vote for it. yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. herrera beutler: i urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan, bicameral effort and i urge adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 3, printed in house report 113-117 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 2 1 -- 271, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, and a member opposed to the amendment will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the spending safeguard amendment because it will protect taxpayers in the event c.b.o. predictions related to the farm risk management election program are horribly wrong. this particular program is basically an expansion of overly generous crop insurance subsidies to producers and is

predicted to cost about $23 billion over 10 years. but it could potentially cost more, much more. that's because the program's costs are linked to high-target price estimates that well exceed historical averages. the prices fall, taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference. as many of us are aware, the 2008 farm bill cost taxpayers 51% more than its drafters predicted. none of us from members of congress to the budget wizards at c.b.o. can predict the future. that's why we must put a safeguard in place to prevent unappropriated spending from eating taxpayers alive. my amendment will cap spending on this program at 110% of c.b.o.-predicted levels for the first five years in which payments are disbursed. fiscal years 2016 through 2020. if c.b.o. predictions are reasonably accurate, nothing will happen. but if the predictions are horribly wrong, this amendment ensures taxpayers won't be forced to pay for another costly washington mistake. this is a simple amendment but one that i hope will set an

important precedent. if congress creates new mandatory spending programs it must put a mechanism in place to ensure costs don't spiral out of control. as our national debt approaches $17 trillion, we simply can't afford to create new, open-ended mandatory spending programs and set them on auto pilot. when i talk to constituents about the federal budget, nearly all are puzzled by the concept of mandatory spending. virtually no one of any political stripe can understand the idea of creating a law one year him that poses an unlimited, unchecked, unaccountable lean on the treasury for all time. even with all the hand ringing over the discretionary spending reductions called for in sequestration, we all know that in the end, budgetary problems on the spending side of the ledge already never be resolved until we can -- ledger will never be resolved until we quell mandatory spending. this has one beautifully simple proposal that for the first time

in the memory of everyone we've talked to, puts a finite number on an otherwise infinite liability. to be clear, this amendment applies only to one single provision, the farm risk management election program, it does not apply to snap and will not affect food stamp benefits or other mandatory spending programs in any way. my amendment will safeguard taxpayers if the farm risk management election program ends up costing significantly more than advertised, prevent automatic and unappropriated spending under this program from skyrocketing, and set a striking new precedent for fiscal responsibility. this amendment should pass with broad, bipartisan support -- with broad bipartisan support, mr. chairman. over the past few days i've noticed that many of my democratic colleagues share my concern about the uncertain budgetary impacts of this program. republicans and democrats alike should rally around this idea which simultaneously protects taxpayers and ensures the fiscal

viability of this program. the time has come to put an end to wreckless, unchecked mandatory spending programs in the farm bill. this amendment may make those unaccustomed to the way things are done uncomfortable, but the simple truth is that the way things are done just doesn't work anymore. in fact, it never has. congress had no problem creating obligations for future generations to fulfill. today we have an opportunity to change course, to set things right, to take the first step toward reining in out-of-control mandatory spending. i urge my colleagues to take this step with me and support this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it. i appreciate the intent of the

gentlelady's amendment which is obviously to restrain federal spending. but being fiscally responsible has been my focus from the very beginning. that's why we brought forth a bill that cuts traditional farm spending by $23 billion. that's 36% over the last 17 years farmers have received substantial fixed payments with 100% certain think. we eliminated those payments, replaceded them with a risk management framework that provides support only when farmers face significant losses. under this amendment, farmers would go from 100% guaranteed direct loans to 100% guarantee that the safety net would fall short when they need it the most. i urge my colleagues to consider a few key points. number one, we built restraint into the new farm policies. the reference prices are are all below cost of production estimates. farmers are only paid on 85% of their acres, in the case of the p.l.c., they're only paid on 90% of their yield. total payments on a farm are capped at total historic program acres, ensuring that no new

acres are added to the program. we have very binding payment limitations and reduced a.g.i. limits and if that weren't enough, the formulas that established the assistance levels are constrained themselves. second, the programs are designed to only turn on when they're needed. the assistance is provided directly in the proportion to need. we're no longer making payments for the sake of making payments. and even though it's incredibly unlikely, if spending levels were ever to reach 110% of c.b.o.'s projected spending levels, it would be so because there's been a catastrophic drop in the market. and the third and final point on this amendment, i say this respectfully to my dear friend, it would be an absolute nightmare to administer. now, some would say administering it is the administration's problem but unlike a lot of legislation that flows through this town, every provision of this bill has undergone extensive technical review to ensure its ability to be implemented. every crop is on its own

marketing year and every state has a slightly different growing season. administering an overall program cap on a risk management tool that is designed to respond to unique risk management challenges is an incredibly challenging problem. it will tie the usda in nots -- knots. i argue that there's a great discussion to have when we debate the technical merits of the budget act. but let's use newly reformed farm safety net as a testing ground for -- let's just not do that. let's just not use it for this experiment. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. chairman, can i inquire as to how much time i have remaining? the chair: you have one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am really disappointed in the chairman of the agriculture committee's response to this amendment. this is a really good amendment that will help us be able to predict in the future how much

money's going to be spent. it will hold the c.b.o. accountable. if the numbers presented to us are accurate, this will never hit. i believe the chairman did not dispute my comments that the last farm bill went over budget 51%. we're constantly hearing that the c.b.o. predicted something and comes in with a totally different number. if by any chance the c.b.o. is wrong here, then the chairman ill do good work in getting us to understand why more money needs to be appropriated for these programs. but i applaud the chairman for what he's done, identifying problems and appropriate solutions, but this is a good amendment, it deserves to be passed, it has bipartisan support and it will take us in the right direction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes.

mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from ed for 2 is recognize 1/2 minutes. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i also rise respectfully in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. my district, located in the mississippi delta region, grows nearly half of all rice produced in the united states. this amendment jeopardizes the safety net rural crop producers in my district depend on to manage risk and stay in business. given the fact that price volatility is the primary risk they face, the price-loss coverage program is the only viable option to provide producers adequate protection. leading experts and ag economists at texas a&m university show that the average cost of production for rice is $14.92 per 100 weight. the $14 per 100 weight established in the farm bill is a realistic -- is realistic and would not kick in unless the producer experiences a loss. what's more, c.b.o. projections already take into account the probability of price movements

that kim pact the overall cost projections of the policy and u.s. farm policy has come in well under budget projections for the last seven years. this will do nothing but create more uncertainty for agriculture producers. the house ag committee has made an effort to craft a farm bill that reflects risk. this amendment is a step backwards. and with all due respect, i urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady's amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have. it the amendment is not agreed to. ms. foxx: mr. chairman, on that qui a recorded vote -- on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellsworth: i have an amendment at the dess -- mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-117 offer blid ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment is simple, it would simply ask us to learn more, it would ask us to know more than we know now about an important subject affecting our society and indeed our whole world. in fact, my amendment would simply require a study to review

climate impacts of the price-loss coverage program. now, i can't understand why we wouldn't want to know the effects of such a program. and i think learning more so that we can do better is a good idea. climate change is a defining issue of this century. it's negatively impacting our economy, our health and security. there is an international consensus that climate change is real, is influenced by man kind and is affecting our world in a negative way. decisions congress makes on this day, mr. chairman, in this farm bill, in fact, will have a direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions in the united states and of course this world doesn't know the borders that these nations do so it will affect the entire globe. agriculture does contribute to climate change. in fact, 8% of all u.s. greenhouse gas emissions come

from agriculture. agriculture also brings great gains to humanity as well. but we need to understand what greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture mean so that we can formulate better policy and utilize available technology. the emissions from agriculture result from fertilizer application, livestock, land use , soil management, farm equipment and rice production. now, the new price-loss coverage program provides farmers raising major crops with subsidies if the crop prices drop below current historic levels. farmers are already plowing up marginal lands and native grasslands in response to record crop prices and crop insurance subsidies. 23 million acres of natural land were plowed up between 2008 and 2011 and almost 20 million of these for corn, soybean and

wheat alone. the price-loss coverage program will further incentivize increased crop production. now, converting land to cropland releases millions of tons of co-2 in the united states every year. and converting more land to agriculture will increase greenhouse gas emissions. but, mr. chairman, we don't know how much, we don't know the extent, we don't know the effects and it's important that we do know so that we can incentivize more green-friendly agriculture production methods, so that we can know the impact on our world and we can know why it's important to take action now in this farm bill today. so a study, shouldn't harm anybody, and i urge support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five

minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i would simply say that i have the greatest respect for my good colleague from minnesota but at the present time and the present set of circumstances, i must in good faith oppose his amendment. i believe he's very sincere in his efforts but again, i must oppose his amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves or yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i'm prepared to close. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the

gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number five, printed in house report 113-117, offered by mr. browne of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from georgia, mr. browne and the gentleman from -- and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. broun: my amendment would simply repeal the outdated and expensive dairy price support law enacted as part of the agriculture act of 1949. this provision created a commodity support policy for dairy production that though suspended upon enactment of each farm bill still remains on the books as permanent law. that this law is still technically in effect is a problem for two reasons.

rst, the price support calculations establish a floor for milk prices which is set at twice the current market price this means the federal government would be required to step in and purchase surplus milk at double the current purchase price which would also drive up costs for taxpayers. but also would result in a higher cost at the grocery store. be -- potentially making a typical glan of milk cost $7 a gallon. this will hurt the most vulnerable in our society, poor children and seniors on a limited income. this potential and likely una-- unintended consequence is troubling but more troubling is that this old law threatens to rear its ugly head every time the farm bill expires before it is re-authorized. in fact, this -- we face this

very issue -- we faced this very issue at the beginning of this year, though it was buried in the larger fiscal cliff deal that passed an january 1. mr. chairman new york this time of congressional gridlock, we've seen bailouts, failed stimulus bills, near government shutdowns, and panic about sequestration and tax hikes. the last thing we need is one more cliff for americans to fall off of. this law is outdated. it is unused. and ultimately a nuisance which requires a patch every time congress fails to renew the larger farm bill. which unfortunately, is a frequent occurrence. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i rise to claim time

in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield o the gentleman from minnesota two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the chairman. when i was chairman and did the last farm bill, we maintained the permanent law and we did it for a reason and that is it's very hard to get thees farm bills done and sometimes you need some motivation to get people to move and that's the main reason when they -- that's the main reason we left it there. mr. peterson: i have a question for the author of the amendment if he would be willing to engage me in the n a discussion here. i guess i was just curious why you're only repealing the dairy provision of the permanent law and not the entire permanent law. is there some reason for that?

mr. broun: would the gentleman yield? mr. peterson: i'd be happy to. mr. broun: the reason for that is the milk price support is actually a floor for the cost that the government buys surplus milk. what that will do is raise the cost the government will have to pay for surplus milk. that's going to cost the taxpayers more money. mr. peterson: the gentleman -- mr. broun: i yield back. mr. peterson: it sets the price of dairy at 85% of parity, about $39, but it also sets the price of wheat and corn and soybeans at anywhere from, i don't know, it's 85% to 95% of parity. and it sets you know, those prices are just as problematic, the difference is, you know what happened last december, you know, the law expired on september 30. but nothing actually happens until that current year crop is harvested. well, wheat is not harvested until may, corn is not harvested

until october, november, but milk is harvested every day, that's why it was an issue. i'm against the permanent law, did just ered why you the dairy. if you want to raise costs to the government, support the good lath -- goodlatte-scott amendment, that's really going to stick it to the government. mr. broun: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield myself the time remaining. i think my colleagues are having a good faith discussion. i do appreciate the point that the ranking member brings. if we're going to address one part of the act, we should address all of it. there's been ongoing discussions as long as i've been here about how to do that. many provisions of federal law have an underlying base law and

we do laws then that build off of that and when they expire you revert to permanent law. that's the case of the 1949 law. maybe the 2013 farm bill should become the permanent law to give us at least a realistic, modern thing to come from but that's probably a discussion far different amendment. i would say simply, i respect any colleague but i cannot vote piecemeal undo things. i've got to have a systematic way about it. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: how much time doif left? the chair: the gentleman has two and a half maines left. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. from the comments my good friend from minnesota and my good friend from oklahoma stated, maybe we should repeal the whole 1949 law. i would be all in favor of working with both gentlemen to find a way to do that.

i'm sure both gentlemen would be incentive t have the a go back to that law as piecemeal way of trying to deal with these problems. and my friend from minnesota is exactly right. the difference between crops, i used to farm, i've been a dairy farmer, i had holstein cows. i was true farmer. i've raised steers, i've hay farmed, i've truck farmed, i've done crops, i wasn't a gentleman farmer. climbed in the back of a combine to clean out the stocks, so i know agriculture. i know the biggest problem agriculture faces today is the regulation, particularly from e.p.a. and i'd like to see those regulations rolled back because that would help our agriculture more than any other thing that we could do.

and i would be all in favor of doing that but the reason i brought the milk part of the old law forward was because of exactly what my good friend if from minnesota stated. you have to milk cows not once a tai, at least twice a day, sometime there's. and the milk support price that is guaranteed in this underlying law will raise costs if we go back to that and it stays in place and if we don't have it suspended or rethored, the farm bill, then what happens is the federal government is going to pay much higher prices for milk. and that's going to increase the cost in the grocery store. for all americans. it's going to hurt the poor people, particularly poor children and senior citizens by having any time -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 20 seconds remaining. mr. broun: i'd be glad to --

mr. peterson: i understand what you're saying but you need to look at the goodlatte-scott amendment, it allows them to buy insurance is $18 a hundredweight, and if the price goes to $11 like it did in 2009, the taxpayers are on the hook. so you have the same problem that you do with this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. broun: mr. chairman. i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from fey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. enyart: i have an emmitt at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number six, printed in the house report 113-117, offered by mr. enyart of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman rom illinois, mr. enyart, will -- -- and a member opposed each will have five minutes. mr. enyart: mr. speaker, today i rise to offer an amendment to this bill to help agriculture in southern illinois. my state of illinois, and indeed in the whole nation the next time drought strikes. after hurricane sandy, the drought of 2012 was the second most costly disaster in the world. it cost upwards of $35 billion in total losses. it devastated southern illinois crops and crops throughout the midwest. the fact that there is no national response or preparedness plan for drought increases these costs by at least 25%. indeed, fema is not even

authorized to address drought. even when areas are declared natural disasters due to drought. in the 110th congress, my colleague from florida, congressman alcee hastings, offered legislation to establish a national drought council. i applaud his foresight and his work which was included in the house version of the farm bill. unfortunately, house and senate conferees failed to include it in the final bill. had it been included, perhaps the federal response to last year's drought would have been streamlined and devastating losses mitigated. my amendment which is based on congressman hastings' work, would give us a tool to help farmers more quickly. the council would be tasked to develop a comprehensive national drought action plan that define responsibilities for drought preparedness, mitigation, research, risk management,

training, and emergency relief programs. the plan provides guidance to federal agencies to ensure their activities are coordinated with the activities of states, local governments, indian tribes and neighboring countries. through an annual report to congress, the council will make recommendations to eliminate duplication an to establish common interagency triggers to authorize federal drought programs. based on a review of drought preparedness plan the council will develop and make available to the -- and make available to the public drought planning models. what this appointed council would not do is draw a paycheck, establish a new office or increase the federal bureaucracy. will a a question of drought strike, it's a question of when. when it does, we need to be better prepared. i urge adoption of this amendment and ask the support of

my colleagues. i yield back. i'm sorry, i yield to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields pa to the chairman. mr. lucas: i have an appreciation for drought issues, being oklahoma man. -- oklahoman. i thank the gentleman for his amendment and support it. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. enyart: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed. it is now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment

number seven, prinned in house report 113-117, offered by mr. graves of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. graves: i bring amendment number seven to the house here, when i think about the issue before us, i know there are a lot of good members on both sides of it, for an against, and there's going to be a lot of debate about whether this bill should move forward but there's one particular portion that i wanted to discuss today and it deals with the incentives and the benefits that go to corn producers for the production of corn that goes to ethanol. and to me, i don't believe that is something that should be provided to these producers whatsoever, these incentives or benefits. . i have to ask, did the original architects of the farm bill

ever imagine that what they were creating at that time would go to benefit the producers of corn that would go to fuel and not food? so my amendment's rather simple. it just eliminates the opportunity for any producer to benefit from producing corn that would go to fuel. instead focuses back on what the original intent of the legislation was and that was to exclusively be for the food production or feed production. so as we debate this bill, as folks will be on all different sides of these amendments, i think it's important to get back to the original intent. if you're going to support the bill, get back to the original intent of what was -- what was intended back in 1933 and the years since then. but let me just remind the house this. this is why it's so important, because estimates tell us that more than 1/3 of all our corn in the united states is used for feed livestock. another 13% is exported mostly

for feed livestock but another 40% of all corn produced in this nation is for ethanol, for ethanol, and all of that, nearly half of all corn in our nation that's produced, those producers receive the same benefits that those that were intending to create corn for food and feed would benefit as well from. so mr. chairman, my amendments a rather simple. i would urge the house consideration of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. mr. graves: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. lucas: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: i note to my colleague, i appreciate his issue of concern. i appreciate i think what he's trying to do but in the nature of the farm bill and nature of the debate we are at this is not really the environment and i would ask him to consider

withdrawing his amendment in good faith for discussion sometime in the near future. and with that i'd yield to my colleague from georgia. mr. graves: i thank the chairman. i thank you for your good work on this. i know we've had good discussions and i take you on your word we can continue this conversation, because i think it's a very important topic. and with your intent, and i know it to be true that we can continue this, i would be willing to withdraw the amendment and continue the debate at further time. mr. lucas: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. mr. graves: i believe the gentleman from arkansas would my intention, mr. chairman, would be to withdraw the amendment. let me close by saying this, as we debate the various policies within this bill, it's very important to note that there are areas such as this in which

i hear the other side talk about the importance of food being provided for our citizens all across the country, and i don't disagree with them at all. i think it's very important. so therefore why would we as a house stand to incentivize those who are producing nearly half of the corn that could be going to the food supply of our great nation but incentivize half the corn almost in our nation rather for fuel instead of food and i look forward to continuing this debate. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time and ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b of house report 113-117, an amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of

oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chairman. the conservation reserve bram has sparked major improvements in water quality, wildlife habitat and wetlands. however, high crop and land prices are spurring landowners to once again pull millions of valuable, vulnerable acres back under the plow at their c.r.p. leases expire. in the last 10 years, we've seen a number of acres equal to the area of the state of indiana taken out of the conservation reserve program and put back into production. this means that the c.r.p.'s environmental benefits are not well leveraged and taxpayers dollars don't earn the return they should because they've spent five years protecting lands simply to have it disappear at the end of the

easement period. this amendment makes a set of simple revenue-neutral changes to be made to the c.r.p. to provide more lasting protection of water, wildlife and soil and to make sure we are fully leveraging federal spending. it requires to the extent possible 20% of the funds dedicated to the conservation reserve program to be used in the continuous reserve conservation reserve, the ccrp, and the conservation reserve enhancement program, crep. these programs are subset of the conservation reserve programs and help states leverage matching funds to produce even greater conservation benefits. in particular, the crep program gives states flexibility to target high-priority conservation and environmentally sense -- in environmentally sensitive areas which helps coordinate local priorities and makes sure any

spending is targeted to produce the best results. the continuous conservation reserve program is a program that is consistently overdescribed, that helps farmers re-enroll in the program continuously rather than once again. adding acreage to this program gives farmers more flexibility. it also protects the long-term conservation benefits of the crep program so taxpayers get what they pay for. these small changes are revenue neutral and will help c.r.p. produce better outcomes for the environment and for taxpayers, leverage state matching funds and provide long-term stability for farmers. i respectfully ask my colleagues join me in supporting this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i will

use whatever time i may consume. h.r. 1947 will step down the acreage cap of the c.r.p. program from 32 million acres to 24 million acres. the required amount of acres for subprograms of c.r.p. will reduce the f.s.a.'s flexibility in administering the program. i do understand that the set-aside in the amendment is consistent with how f.s.a. is currently running -- runs the program. however, when crafting the conservation title, we tried to leave as much flexibility as possible. i fear the set-aside could limit future general signups or tie f.s.a.'s hands in future targeted initiatives. i'll work with the gentleman to ensure that c.r.p. targets the most environmentally sensitive lands, but i must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member from minnesota, mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i want to assure mr. blumenauer that the chairman and i share his concerns and philosophy, but this is not in my judgment an amendment that's necessary because there's never been a situation that i'm aware of where the continuous signup has been limited by anything going on. in fact they can't get enough continuous acres signed up to meet the goals that they had. the same thing with the crep acres. so the department has administratively always made room for any continuous and any crep requests that are out there. there's never been a

limitation. there's never been a backlog. there's never been an impediment to signing up these acres. the issue we have now with c.r.p. is these highland prices and high -- high land prices and high commodity prices, you're right about that, and we're seeing acres come out, you know, all over the country and that concerns me. i've been the biggest champion of c.r.p., and i reluctantly agreed to lower these acres to 24 million acres because that's what's going to happen anyway. these acres are going to be reduced, but it's not going to be in crep. it's going to be in the regular c.r.p. program. if i could figure out how to stop that i would, but you'd have to literally triple or quadruple the amount of money that's paid for the general signup in order to get those acres back into the program given my understanding of what's going on. so, you know, i just don't see why we need to have this in

there. you know, we've always accommodated this, and if we're going to do anything in c.r.p. is figure out how to raise the rental rates to get the general c.r.p. signup back up to where it needs for. and i'm very concerned about losing this big track c.r.p., because this is what's brought wildlife around the country back. you know, we're losing it. so the other -- the last thing i would say about this is, you know, the -- i lost my train of thought. n , anyway, there is not a impediment to continuous or crep. and if there is not in the 24 million acres, it won't be out of crep or continuous. so i oppose the amendment. i don't think there's any reason to do this because the

department has been taking care of it. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: thank you. the purpose of the amendment is to help focus on more long-lasting protection for the water, wildlife and soil. i appreciate what the ranking member said in terms of issues for additional funding for wildlife habitat, and i have another amendment coming forward, which i think helps address that. in the meantime, having an opportunity here to -- and i mentioned in the amendment, is to the extent possible the 20%'s dedicated for the continuous reserve program and the conservation reserve enhancement program. being able to focus and leverage the local funds seems

to me to be -- to provide long-term stability, leverage the state matching. and i see my colleague from virginia is here. i don't know if he wants -- he wants to speak on the next one. i respectfully request that members join with me in an amendment that's supported by the environmental working group, the national sustainible agriculture coalition, defenders of wildlife, pew trusts, organic trade association, slow food, food mocracy, the organic consumers union and union of concern, scientists. allowing us to be able to move forward in this regard i think would be a positive. i didn't hear any compelling reasons from my friends other

than they thought it would be taken care of. i think this amendment would ensure it will move forward and respectfully ask for its approval. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer,

and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the rules committee having made this amendment in order. it makes important revenue-neutral changes to the eqip program to protect the original intent of the program, to use tax dollars to help more farmers and produce better results for the taxpayers. in difficult budget times we must prioritize value. this makes changes to the environmental quality incentives program to restore the 1996 language. it implements stricter payment limits to make sure we're not spending too much money on any one project. at a time when conservation funding is as much as four times greater than the supply, we can't afford to let a few huge projects crowd out

available funding. this amendment also reinstates the original 1996 eqip language which eliminated spending for factory farms. that language was included in 1996 because members were nervous that too much of the eqip would go to just a few family farm projects and they were right. the legislation also provides additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use fewer pesticides or antibiotics. as united states doctors and scientists become increasingly concerned of nontherapeutic antibiotics in meat production, we should do everything we can to make it easier for farmers and ranchers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics. finally, eqip is to be used as a short-term program and protects wildlife set-aside which has been place since the program began. the opposition is from people -- for purposes that most americans wouldn't consider to be conservation related.

recent data shows that one in four eqip dollars in the last 10 years has been spent on large structural projects that produce limited conservation benefits and are extremely expensive. i noted in the press last week, one project almost $2 million. yet the average is $13,500. i appreciate the opportunity to start this discussion and think about how best to spend limited conservation dollars for maximum conservation benefits. i respectfully suggest that that's to be found with this amendment. and i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i

might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i rise in strong opposition to theasm conservation title has gone through many reforms by combining, eliminating many duplicative programs. the result, i think, is a fair and balanced program that addresses the concerns of farmers, ranchingers and land owners. however, the gentleman's amendment seeks to undo the balance by stripping the program of the authorities that make it unique. equi -- eqip program is arguably the most successful program administered by the nrcs. the programs help farmers and ranchers meet and exceed national, state, and local environmental regulations. known as the bricks and mortar of the program, farmers and ranchers depend on eqip for assistance to build waste runoff facility, address and purchase equipment. the gentleman's amendment would

fundamentally change the program by reducing participation and limiting what could be tissue what it could be used for. we should not diminish the program's current authorities. the amendment would make e.p.a. no different than any other working lands program and eliminate an essential tool that farmers and ranchers depend on to meet increasing environmental regulations. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is -- from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i yield 75 seconds to my friend from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a quarter. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment because it would improve the environmental quality incentives program by targeting support for the smaller and mid sized farms where the investment will buy a

bigger bang for the buck. just 1% of agribusinesses get more than 20% of eqip payments and about 70% of that funding is used to build structures to store manure, lay pipeline, purchase sprinkler systems. this doesn't to anything to prestrict large farming operations. the limits in this amendment would have affected less than half a percent of eqip contracts between 1997 and 2010, where we have statistics. our limited federal funding, i think, would be better targeted by helping small and mid sized farms engage in more sustainable packtieses such as transitioning to methods that use fewer antibiotics and pesticides. i think it makes sense to target where we can get the bigger bang for the buck because more intensive production practices pollute the air and diminish the quality of the soil, placing

future production yields at risk. it seems to me in austere budget tiles, we ought not do away with conservation incentives but instead make them more restricted. i think we need to help more shawl and medium sized farms. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the house agriculture committee, mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. not that i disagree with the intent here, you know, i think that if you look at the eqip program you will see it has primarily been utilized by smaller producers around the country. but i just want to give you an example of the real world here of how this works. in my district. we have the river in my district, a beautiful district

that has probably a hundred dairy farms located along this river. these dairy farms have been there for 75 or 100 years. you know, these have been in the family, a lot of these farms are 50 cows, 75 cows, probably 100 cows would be the largest one. these are small family farms, been in the, you know, families for generations, and the problem is that the barns and the pastures and the barnyards were located next to the river. all along to river. that's how they did things 75 years ago. we have used and so what happened is that river got polluted from the manure running off and the lake, a beautiful lake, became overfertilized and grew up with weeds and so forth, you've seen that in the chesapeake bay and so forth. what we did is went in there with eqip money and moved

barnyards, moved the cattle out away from the river. and you know, we didn't build any huge structures or anything. we built some to try to dam up things and so forth, but the point is, even with the limitations we had on there of the $300,000, we still had -- this was not a cheap thing to do on these farms and these weren't big farms system of it took us, you know, two, three, four years to move each of these operations and to move 100 of them, you know, took us, i don't know 20, 25 years. but we have basically accomplished that and we have cleaned up the river, cleaned up the lake, and if you had this amendment, we'd never be able to get this done. we wouldn't have -- $30,000 a year wouldn't get us anywhere near what we needed to do to get that, you know, get that accomplished in that area. that's just one example. so the nrcs people and the

f.s.e. people involved in this, they monitor these things, they're, you know, prioritizing where they go, and you can see from when you look at statistics, they've been focused on the smaller projects. but there are times when you have to deal with things that have been put out there, not because of anybody doing anything with any ill intent, it's just what they did 100 years ago and we're trying to clean it up. so i would caution the members to be careful about putting the limitations on these programs because a loft times it can have a consequence that wasn't intended. i oppose this amendment and would urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized. mr. blumenauer: i have 75 seconds? the chair: one and one quarter minutes. mr. blumenauer: i recognize the

gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for 45 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: i support this amendment. we have seen natural disasters from drought to heat waves to floods affecting farmers from coast to coast. we spend billions of dollars on crop insurance subsidies to cover the cost of these. this amendment expands and improves the usda environmental quality incentives program to bring support to farmers to adjust to a climate, it adds climate mitigation as an eligible eqip program expense, i think it makes sense and i would urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate my friends joining me, the crux of this issue is who is going to get the benefit. there were over 300,000 contracts, 92 projects, took 20%

of the money. this amendment would target it for those of far greater number, most of the large confined animal feed lot operations manage on their own. the rest of them can. focus it for people who need it the most, not have a bunch of the money sucked up by large, industrial agricultural activities to provide more benefit for more farmers and ranchers, approve this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in part d of house report 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 10, printed in house report 113-117, offered by mr. ben ray lujan of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mexico. mr. lujan: for many years, farmers in new mexico have been asking for an amendment to allow associations to access eqip funds. the centuries old irgation structure still in use today primaryly in hispanic communities across new mexico is

governed by a small board made up of private land owners. the board of private land zone owners also called the association is in charge of the maintenance of the infrastructure which requires on sections of the infrastructure residing on private land. because of the existing rules, individuals can apply for assistance but can't apply to let the community ditch association to help with the work even though the community ditch association is charged with maintaining the structure for all water users. you can see the dilemma we're facing. this translate into burdensome roadblocks to practice nservation or maintain water use. water use and conservation practices are key to keeping our

communities alive. they have indicated this language in my amendment would create the administrative efficiency needed when working with small producers in new troops o irgate their via community ditches. it does not open up the program to large irgation districts but affords local hispanic farmers in rural new mexico equal eligibility to compete for funding. as the community ditch associations, comprised solely of private land owners, do not have the authority to impose taxes or levees are in need of this clarifying language. mr. chairman, these programs are put together state by state and funded state by state and it's my hope that through the work with the committee staff and mr. chairman, the minority staff and the majority staff, i want to thank them because they really took the time with my team to take a look at this and i think everyone understands the need, although there stale may be some

questions. with that, i yield -- i will yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. lucas: the chair would note to the gentleman, i think he's got a very interesting concept here. clearly we need to talk more about this as we go along. but my ranking member would nod his head over there, i certainly would be willing to sthep amendment. mr. lujan: i yield back the balance of my time and thank everyone for they help on this. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part b of house report 113-17.

ifs now in order to consider -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 12 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. gardner of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i worked on this emergency watershed protection program. over the past several years we've seen incredible wildfires ravage the west, new mexico,

colorado, wyoming, montana, the northwest. millions of acres have been lost. just this past month alone over 500 homes have been lost in colorado in the black forest fire. and we know one thing occurs as a result of wildfires and it's not just the event that occurs during the fire. it's not just the impact of the burning itself to the fire, to the homes, but it's what happens in the days, months and years following the forest fire that leads to millions of dollars worth of damage. in the case of the high park fire, in the case of the waldo canyon fire last year and indeed of the black forest fire coming up in the coming weeks, we know that when there is moisture, when there's rain, when there's snow, erosion will occur. i'm holding a vial of sediment from a river. it looks like dirt. it's black. but it actually came from a river after a forest fire in colorado.

millions of dollars of damage done to the ecosystem as a result of the fire making runoff destroy transportation systems, clog culverts and hurt drinking water systems. the emergency watershed protection program is a critical program to help mitigate damage from natural disaster. as wildfires continue to hit the western united states, this program will continue to do great good. last year it was an unusually devastating year for wildfires across the united states. 67,000 wildfires burned over nine million acres. significant wildfires occurred in almost every state in the nation. our amendment today is simple. it requires the secretary of agriculture to give priority consideration for the use of the emergency watershed protection funding for projects that prevent and mitigate the impacts of catastrophic wildfires. it does not prevent emergency watershed protection program fund to be used for other types of disaster, but the e.w.p.

program has protected public safety in the wake of the most destructive wildfires. before a wildfire, the emergency watershed protection program helps community mitigate future wildfire damage by protecting critical watersheds. after a wildfire, e.w.p. helps communities protect drinking water infrastructure and prevent erosion and minimize potential hazards that cause immediate threats to people and property. the amendment is supported by the entire colorado house delegation, and i thank congressman polis for his support and work on this amendment and i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: and with that i would like to yield to the gentleman from mississippi 4 3/4 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for 4 3/4 minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. chairman. while i am not in opposition to

the proposed amendment, i do have an amendment that i had planned to offer and, however, the process was going so fast and i was not here in the time, but it speaks to the wetteland reserve program at usda. commonly referred to as the w.r.p. program. to date, w.r.p. has restored over 2.5 million acres with over 12,000 private landowners. w.r.p. benefits private landowners by restoring land that should have never been cleared for agriculture. the public benefits from the reduced financial demand for disaster assistance and/or crop insurance fund from lands that experience repeated losses. significant long-term conservation benefits obtained from the protection of wildlife habitat, the improvement of water quality, the increased of

flood storage and the soil erosion. the house farm bill we're considering today consolidates into a new agriculture conservation easement program. this new program will consist of agriculture easement and wetteland easements. the components of amendments that i offer today are simple. first, it makes the ownership eligibility requirement for wetteland easement equal to the other conservation programs by returning to the pre-2008 farm bill requirements of one year ownership instead of seven years. my amendments includes the wettest soil from the county enrollment caps. soil in these classes frequently flood and retain moisture at levels that severely impair or prevent farming. by allowing the lands that are the least economical to farm to be enrolled in a wetteland

easement, we will save the potentially public fund assistance and reduce the overall cost of crop insurance. mr. speaker, all of these changes would have been adopted in the senate farm bill. the w.r.p. is reshaping how wetteland conservation is carried out on private lands. and in doing so in a cost-effective manner. and had i the opportunity, i would have offered this amendment. however, after consultation with the chair and ranking member, there is agreement that i will withdraw the amendment and we will ensure that these important changes are considered in conference. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman and would like at this point yield to my colleague from colorado, congressman polis, for two minutes. congressman polis and i have worked closely together over

the past couple of years as wildfires affected our districts. his district has a wildfire burning as we enter into this debate and would yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for the remainder of your time, two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. the new fire in bailey, colorado, in addition the black forest fire has already destroyed 500 homes and killed two coloradans. last year an unusually devastating year for wildfires where there was 67,000 wildfires across the country. look, this emergency watershed protection program is absolutely critical for communities that are impacted by fires. that's why our entire delegation from colorado, democrats, republicans, led by mr. gardner and i, are all co-sponsors of this amendment. and i'm proud to offer this commonsense amendment which would simply require that the secretary of agriculture give priority consideration to emergency watershed project funding for projects to prevent

and mitigate the impacts of catastrophic wildfires. simply establishes that as a priority. for those of us who come from communities that have been impacted, we see firsthand the need for these funds to help protect drinking water, to help prevent erosion, to minimize potential hazards that can cause additional threats to people and property long after the fires have been extinguished. now, we know we can't stop wildfires but we can take measures to reduce their impacts on our communities both before and after the wildfire. to be clear, this amendment doesn't prevent emergency watershed protection funding from being used for other types of disasters, and it will. but it stipulates in the wake of severe wildfire emergency, the secretary of agriculture will give priority to give projects that help these areas. i strongly urge my colleagues vote yes on the gardner-polis-lamborn-coffman-

tipton. i say our entire delegation standing strong behind this amendment and i hope we adopt amendment 119 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i appreciate the endeavor of the congressmen from colorado. i understand they're dealing with circumstances out there. i'm not sure this is the language but i would suggest to my colleagues that we support them and we pass this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. fortenberry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the gentleman rise as the designee? mr. fortenberry: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 13 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been pleased to work with congressman thompson in providing this commonsense amendment to enhance the conservation goals in our country. our farmers and ranchers are first stewards of the land, and this amendment would simply continue the practice of conservation planning on our most fragile lands to ensure we meet important land and stewardship goals. the concept is widely upheld as an important conservation initiative by many in the agricultural and environmental communities. the amendment does call upon farmers and ranchers to develop unique conservation plans when seeking to receive federal crop insurance subsidies on highly erodible lands. i believe this to be a reasonable measure that is consistent with our current conservation policies. it is also important to emphasize that this is not a new idea. in fact, this approach has a long track record of proven results, conservation compliance was linked with crop insurance in the 1985 farm bill

and has been tied to direct payments since 1996. according to a report by the usda's economic research ervice, an estimated 295 million tons of erosion reduction per year could be directly attributed to implementation of conservation compliance policy. in addition, conservation compliance has resulted in significant reduction in the annual loss of wetlands. i believe the strategy has worked. given some late-hour complications that has arisen, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn, but i hope that we can look forward to continuing dialogue with the chairman, particularly since this is in the underlying senate bill. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 113-117. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: mr. chairman, i have an at the desk. the chair: gentlewoman a designee of the the gentleman from florida? ms. kaptur: yes, i am. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number