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 14,

offered by ms. caupt did your of ohio. the chair: -- kaptur of ohio. the the gentlewoman from ohio, kaptur and a opponent will be recognized. ms. kaptur: i offer amendment number 14 on behalf of congresswoman hastings and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: i offer my highest commendation to congressman hastings for thinks work on this vital issue. i ask unanimous consent to insert mr. hastings statement into the record on this amendment. the chair: request will be covered by general leave. ms. kaptur: let me begin with the words of congressman hastings, no bees, no food. the amendment being offered today will help coordinate the

response to the decline in our nation's bee population. specifically, the amendment would allow the secretary of agriculture to work with the secretary of interior and administrator of the environmental protection agency to ensure the long-term viability of our bee population. the amendment would allow the establishment of a task force on bee health and commercial beekeeping to coordinate federal efforts in addressing the significant bee population decline. preliminary results from a survey by the u.s. department of agriculture show that nearly a third of managed honeybee colonies in our country were lost during the 2012-2013 winter, that is an increase of 42% in honeybee losses. on average u.s. beekeepers lost half of their colonies this past

winter. this was an increase nationally of over 78% from the previous winter. traditionally the average loss had only been about 10% to 15% and there have been significant bee losses in 22 different states. this amendment will help coordinate the federal response to the sudden massive decline of our nation's bee population. since 2006, we have lost 10 million beehives costing beekeepers more than $2 billion. know one knows what is causing these dramatic losses which is known as colony collapse disorder. we don't know if it is natural. we don't know if it's the result of changes in the environment. we don't know if it's due to interactions with genetically modified crops. we don't know if it is due to pesticides. can tell you one thing, it is

due to ites on material that came in from foreign countries, from china, south africa by way of brazil, and they are just crippling these colonies that have gone into our orchards and fields for generations. we need to take this seriously because the massive decline in these populations threatens this all. without this, we will not be able to meet the demands of u.s. agricultural crops that require bees to grow. it isn't all by magic. not every plavent is a self-pollinat omp r and we will not be able to grow the food we need. we are importing too much food here. the decline in the bee population has been occurring over a period of time but listen to the losses. in 1947 when america had only

146 million people we had six million bee colonies. in 1970, that number dropped to four million and in 1990, the number fell to three million. there are only 2.5 million bee colonies and we have a population of 310 million and projected by 2050 we will have a population of 500 million. bee population is vital and this produces about a third of what we eat. this adds $125 billion in global protection value and $30 billion in united states agricultural production value. of the 100 crops that provide the food, 70% of poll natured by bees. of the 100 crops that present the world's food. n the north america, honeybees

pollinate are in specialty crops like apples and the current federal response to this problem is entirely inadequate. people think this is nonexistent bus the bee can fly right by you and don't see it. it is so bad one professor is saying one poor weather event way from a pollination disaster. why one bad storm could wipe out our bee population. it is clear what we are doing is not working. this amendment is supported -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time is expired. mr. lucas: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: i yield to myself as much time as i may consume. i appreciate the gentlelady's

very sincere interest and our congressman hastings' work. he has been a champion on these issues and while we are aware of the need for federal cooperation in addressing the issues, i believe this amendment is costly and duplicative. i'm likewise concerned with the broad nature of the authority granted to the secretary to implement new policies without the necessary statutory structure to direct the secretary's agenda. i'm aware several constituent groups have raised concerns since this first was raised last month as a proposed boxer amendment to the farm bill, but few have had a chance to evaluate it or in the hearing process. i therefore must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues otherwise and i would like to work with both the lady and the distinguished gentleman to see if we can come up with a

desirable outcome to address this. when i say i'm concerned about the authority given the authority, in the language it says the secretary and the administrator of the environmental protection agency shall carry out such activities as the secretary determines to be appropriate to protect and ensure long-term viability of populations. i just have concerns about the nature of this language and therefore i must respectfully oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. lucas: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. ms. kaptur: i would like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6,

rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from ohio will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in part bmp of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 15, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from new york, mr. engel be permitted to control five minutes of the debate time allocated to me.

the chair: is there objection? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: i appreciate the hard work of chairman lucas, but there is one program in glaring need of reform. this bipartisan amendment will make our will-intentioned but grossly outdated international food aid programs more flexible, more efficient and more effective and under the current system which was designed 60 years ago, all of our food aid must be purchased in the u.s. and at least 50% has to be shipped on u.s.-flagged vessels. yet today 60 years later, food prices and u.s. agricultural exports have reached historic highs and this makes this program of negligible value. food aid purchases now account for less than half a percent of net farm income. businesses at the ports are booming. there are only a handful of

u.s.-flagged ships. when asked how the proposed reforms would impact american farmers, the secretary of agriculture stated, far from ending a partnership between our nation's humanitarian and development mission and our world-class agricultural and food system, we are recommitting, recommitting to the role that american agriculture plays in food security and tapping into the ingenuity of american farmers and the powers of science and innovation to avoid fute shortages to end global hunger. mr. chairman, these subsidies can no longer be justified. they add to the cost of the program and delay by months the time that it takes for food aid to reach desperate disaster victims. the royce-engel amendment would enact two reforms. it would allow 45% of food aid

to be purchased closer to the food crisis and would have savings and reduce mandatory spending by $150 million and going to allow us to reach four mill i don't remember more disaster victims. second, the amendment occur tails the process, which the government accountability office is is disrupting local markets. it wastes money and slows economic growth and harms those we are trying to help. in recent years, it has wasted $250 million. there are real-life consiqunses to clinging to an inefficient program. not to mention the millions in desperate need of humanitarian aid globally. by investing in local markets, we help nations become more food secure and develop more u.s. trade partners. we break the cycle of aid

dependency. this amendment enjoys wide bipartisan support. both this administration, this one and the last administration have sought these changes. the amendment is supported by a long list of relief organizations. mr. chairman, the question is not should we reform food aid but why have we waited so long. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i yield to the gentleman from texas. the chair: does the gentleman claim the time in opposition? mr. lucas: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. lucas: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i appreciate the time and i respectfully disagree with my good colleagues both of human are sincere in their efforts. i believe this amendment is wrong-headed. if it was enacted last year would have placed $928 million

in cash assistance in unstable regions of the world with no clear guidelines how the money should be spent or track. we saw waste of cash in iraq when we tried to use cash to further our means there. it's a whole lot harder to steal a sack of rice with u.s.a. written on the side of it than it is to steal a stack of currency. so this program is meant to help folks in need of food. no cheaper producer than the american farmer and i respectfully disagree with my colleagues and urge a no vote on the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from new york. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: i rise in strong support of the royce-engel

amendment to this bill and i'm pleased to stand with the chairman in a bipartisan amendment, which is common sense. since 1954, the food for peace program has fed more than a billion people around the world. it embodies the compassion and generosity of the american people and however the world has changed in the 59 years since food for peace was enacted and our food aid should reflect the new realities. the current problem is it takes too long to deliver. food grown in the u.s., which makes up the vast majority of our assistance takes an average of 130 days to deliver. by purchasing food closer to the recipient countries, we can cut the delivery time in half and get food to starving people before it's too late. food aid is too expensive. shipping and transportation costs account for half the food aid budget. we can save hundreds of millions

of dollars which can be used to feed needy people. by passing our amendment we can reach more people without spending an extra dime. the easy thing is to do nothing, but the right thing to do to enact sensible reforms that save taxpayer money and most importantly save lives. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan commonsense amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas for two minutes. . . mr. crawford: this would dismantle one of the most effective tools. food for peace provides american-grown food supplies to the poorest and most vulnerable populations in the world. this program has been in place for nearly 60 years and is the

cornerstone of the united states' most diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. if there are any infisheses then usda and usaid must be accountable for them because they coordinate the program's implementation. i reject the idea that direct cash assistance in the form of local and regional purchase program, is a better way to go because it uses food vouchers to buy foreign-sourced food. it sounds like a proposal to provide food stamps to the world. instead of giving them free rein to spend cash wherever they see fit, food for peace allows farmers to serve azzam bass dors. as you can see the sign beside me, the first thing starving people see when they receive a bag of rice, and it likely came from arkansas, is the stamp of the american flag. and we're concerned about what the contents of that bag has in it. that american flag means something and we don't want to diminish the brand and the quality of the prodetective

contained in that bag. -- product contained in that bag. i ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i wish to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, two minutes, please. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, my colleagues from california and new york are sincere, and like i think all 435 of us, possess a deep sense of humidity and the necessity for -- humanity and the necessity for america to reach out in our bers -- best spirit to help those. this is reality. this is a picture that my wife took in eritrea a few years back.

that's the american food for peace program. it is not broken. the american food for peace program is really about humanitarian, economic and national security. it's extremely important. my wife and i have spent many years and many days in the famine camps around the world. this is the statement of america. it's not a check and it's not cash and it's not a credit card or a debit card. it's a delivery of food. the food for peace program really does work. it's not broken. it is not broken at all. prepositioning food overseas does work. when the great flood occurred in pakistan just a couple of years ago, it was this program, the delivery of american food in sacks that actually arrived before there was any local food that was purchased. the food for peace program is not broken. i agree for the need for flexibility and we actually have it. we have the emergency -- the international disaster assistance program, which is in

place and can be used and it can be cash purchases. you don't need to change the food for peace program to deal with it. you preposition food. you send american products, american food overseas. it is the very best way that we can help, and it turns out that in the pakistan disaster, this program, the food for peace program, delivered food faster and better than the local programs because the local programs had totally broken down. and that will happen over and over. we don't need to destroy something that's worked for 50 years. i apparently yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. rahall: i thank the chairman for yielding. while i support making our foreign aid programs as

efficient as possible, i cannot support the amendment by the gentleman from california and new york, mr. royce and mr. engel. however well-intentioned the sponsors might be, the effect of this amendment would be to hurt the u.s. fleet which serve our nation in times of peace. it would reduce cargoast shipped overseas under the food for peace program. no one disputes that fact. however, many of the militaryaryly useful vessels also participate in the food aid programs under cargo preference. for example, all 19 vessels owned by line limited and enrolled in the marine security program also carry foreign food aid. for that matter, the u.s. mariners that serve on these vessels come from the same common pool that serves both needs. you cannot cut one without also harming the other. and once these jobs are gone they are gone forever. plain and simple this means fewer voyages for u.s. carriers

and fewer jobs at a time when our military is reducing the sea fleet demand, i urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. sorry. excuse me. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. as an american, i am proud of that for six decades our great nation has been a leader in the global effort to fight hunger and malnutrition. have seen for myself in haiti, batswana and so many nations. yet, we can do better. we can reach millions more. we can urge those to do more and we can alleviate hunger.

i've seen how much more we can do if we enable in-country producers with technical assistance. millions more can be reached more efficiently and effectively and better empower nations and their people with the ability to self-sustain. food reform makes sense. if our goal is to help as many people as possible with funds that are dedicated to fighting hunger. why not reach millions more for what we are spending today? i wanted to be said -- be the case we have reached -- when i go on future trips that recipient nations there is progress and how many we have reached. i also want the capacity of those to have increased for them to help themselves. support and vote for the royce-engel amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i deeply respect the authors of

this amendment and respect balancing competing concerns but i respectfully believe they struck the wrong balance. one concern i have here is that money is fungible. food is not. the possibility of corruption occurring not because of the good-faith n.g.o.'s but because of some of the forces and the countries we are talking about is a problem. i believe the effect of this program would be to undercut our merchant marine activities, our agricultural exporters and ultimately undercut support within this country for a robust program of food aid to the rest of the world. the present structure of the program is inclusive. it builds support. i respectfully think this amendment would detract from that support. for that reason i would urge a no vote. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute.

mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i rise in support of this amendment. i've always been a strong supporter of america's global food aid programs, and i've made it a point to visit these programs in the field in africa and in latin america. after seeing firsthand these emergency response and development programs, one thing is clear to me. we need to do whatever works best for each situation. one size does not fit all. we should provide u.s. commodities and preposition them in the field. cash for local purchase, vouchers and fortified food for children and we need grants for projects that address chronic hunger and that's exactly what the royce-engel amendment does. it provides flexibility. it expands u.s. options in responding to crises. it reaches more people with the same amount of dollars and alleviates global hunger. our food aid programs is designed to end hunger. it's not all one way or the other. this amendment provides the flexibility. i ask my colleagues to support the royce-engel amendment on

food aid reform. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to mr. cummings for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: i rise in opposition of the royce-engel amendment. this has used u.s. taxpayer funding for those that need food around the world as well as the united states merchant marine. this amendment would would gut the program by allowing 45% of s funding to send cash payments. as the reap of the subcommittee on the coast guard i can assure you this would be devastating to the u.s. merchant maroon and the domestic sea lift capacity that move 90% of the cargo supporting our military in iraq and afghanistan. let me paint a picture. in 2012, just over 9,000 ships visited u.s. ports. only approximately 100 of those vessels sailed under united states flag.

i emphasize these 100 vessels include vessels that use food aid. it would drive more vessels from the u.s. flag fleet which exceeded 850 ships as recently as 1975. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. i now -- the chair: the gentleman from new york has a minute and a half remaining. mr. engel: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the ranking member of the africa subcommittee of the house foreign affairs committee, ms. bass. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for ne minute. ms. bass: mr. speaker, this amendment modernizes and makes critical reforms to the u.s. food for peace program. while this amendment will feed millions more people, it's importantly -- it importantly ends policies that have depressed local markets and in

some instances hurt rather than helped those in need. in africa where we see food emergencies in the horn of africa, creating greater flexibility to purchase food commodities from local and regional farmers will strengthen local markets and ensure african nations are less reliant on u.s. foreign aid. too often we americans see africa as a land of crisis. this amendment shifts this outlook and will look at africa as an example what they themselves can and will play a critical role in addressing hunger and malnutrition. this amendment saves money and assists countries to be self-sufficient. let's put an end to backward policies that is harmful to local markets and allows the continent of africa and many other nations, africa with six of the fastest growing economies in the world, to help solve local food emergencies. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from

tennessee, mr. fincher, one minute. mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment favors our foreign competitors over american-grown products, american-grown industries and jobs filled by americans. unlike foreign aid programs, the food for peace program is america made through and through and is tied to approximately 44,000 american jobs in the agriculture, transportation and maritime industries. an american is employed in every step of the process of the food for peace program. americans grow the crops, the commodities are processed and packaged in the united states, those packaged are carried by our railroads and barges to american sea ports. and finally delivered to the receiving nations by u.s. flagged vessels. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and support american farmers, american workers and american taxpayers. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. he has 30 seconds remaining. mr. engel: yes, i'd like to yield my 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. farr: thank you very much. thank you for yielding. i rise in support of this amendment. this keeps the buying american food and shipping it on american-flagged ships and preserves american jobs and frees up money for countries to learn how to fish and go out and buy food and also develop the markets. as a returning peace corps volunteer, this is a smart investment. this is a much better amendment than keeping the status quo and i urge support. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is

recognized. 3/4. cas: i yield 1 mr. green: i thank my colleague from oklahoma, i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by congressmen royce and engel. this would cripple the foreign aid program and since 1954, food for peace has enabled the united states to play a leading role in responding and ensuring global security reaching three billion people. 2012, the food for peace shipped tons of american food abroad under many flags. food for peace has maintained the domestic merchant marine by ensuring a steady flow of american cargo by america cast on u.s.-flagged ships. many benefits from the program are being threatened by this amendment which would redirect

45% of the program's budget to send direct overpayment overseas with little accountability and little transparency and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: the gentleman has expressed concern about accountability. with all due respect, allow me to dispel a myth, we are not talking about sending bags of cash to foreign governments so they can spend it on whatever they want. no matter the form, u.s. food assistance is now and will continue to be subject to multiple levels of scrutiny and monitoring and evaluation. the food for peace program maintains strong accountability for funds. food aid will continue to be branded with u.s. aid logos,

predominantly displayed on all program-related materials regardless of whether the food is purchased in the united states or in the affected region. that is the way this program works. and according to the secretary of defense, the defense department supports the president's proposed reform, supports this reform of the food aid program and the defense department has assessed that it will not affect maritime security in any way since these are none militarily useful ships under foreign ownership any way, for the most part. mr. chairman, this is about fixing a broken system. our food aid takes too long to arrive and costs too much to get there. a former top aid official told our committee last week that in fast onset famine such as somalia and wars involving mass

population displacements such as darfur, he said i watch people die waiting for food aid to arrive. he wants a change so it can be purchased right there and when they are waiting for the ship to arrive and feed those people before they starve to death. that's what this is driving this amendment. in syria, a shipment of food arrived two years after the onset after this. it would have been helpful if we had a little bit of ability in the program to handle this on the ground. u.s. interests are being undermined by archaic food aid programs and i would urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma still has 3/4 of a minute remaining. mr. lucas: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. engel: i request a recorded voit. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk the clerk: part b amendment number 16 printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: the rationale behind this amendment is simple. hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the world's most successful

companies and trade groups and for their business and advertising overseas. yet that's exactly what the market access program does. every year, the federal government takes millions from taxpayers and hands it to multi-million dollar corporations. these funds end up financing lavish international travel and marketing expenses for corporations that could most certainly afford to do it themselves. this is cronyism for the well connected and with a $17 trillion debt almost, it is time to end this misuse of tax dollars. just a few more examples include a taxpayer-funded japanese tweet while you eat campaign to promote u.s. beef, a series in spain promoting walnuts that chronicles the adventures of a squirrel named super twiggy and

his enemy. educational wine tastings in london, denmark, dublin and mexico, american whiskey tastings in hong kong and alabet outdoor party in dell high so they could discuss prunes. the list goes on and on. billion dollar industries padding their bottom lines with american tax dollars. they ought to do these things but on their own dime, not on the backs of the american taxpayers. take for example, blew diamond almonds, still received $3.3 million from the market access program or the u.s. meat export federation which received $19 million from m.a.p. last year even though the value of p beef exports was at the highest level or sunkist which recorded its

third consecutive billion dollar year but received $2.2 million from the american taxpayer. so we have billion dollar enterprises and million dollar recipients of aid from the american taxpayer. the bottom line is congress should not spend hard-earned tax dollars this way. republicans don't believe in it. democrats don't believe in it. let's stop doing it. don't get me wrong again. these businesses ought to be doing this. they ought to be advertising their own products, but shouldn't do it on the backs of the american taxpayer. for the sake of the taxpayers who are earning the money they are spending here, i urge the passage of this amendment and i would like to yield such time as he might consume to mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i rise in strong support of the

amendment. this is one of the most indefensible programs in the entire federal government. as mr. chabot said, it pays to market u.s. agricultural products in foreign countries, which invites the question why should american taxpayers pay the advertising costs of some of the biggest corporations in the world? who are we talking about here? startup companies like archer aniels, hitland, d omp le, delmonte, big enough companies to export overseas are big enough to advertise that produce without picking the pockets of every small shop keeper in america. this would end this program and save taxpayers about $2 billion over the next 10 years and as the gentleman said these expenditures are completely out of the realm of reason.

$2 million to the california rune board for an evening dine experience to discuss prunes. $2 million, that must have been quite an evening. $18.9 million going to the cotton counsel to advertise on india's tv reality show now in the fifth season. this advertising isn't being done in america but overseas and being done to supplement the advertising budgets of giant corporations. mr. chairman, the republican majority was supposed to end this kind of nonsense, not perpetrate it. i support this amendment. i believe it is a test of the determination and sincerity of the house majority in leading its mandate to stop wasting people's money. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. 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. barrowas: i yield to mr. for one minute. >> i represent one of the most diverse agricultural areas of the country. farmers in the 12th district of georgia grow almost everything you can imagine, fruits and vegetables, including one of the argest blueberry and onions, georgia is home to one of the largest container ports in the country. one of the real bright spots is that thanks in large part to the market access program farmers have been able to expand their exports to foreign markets. these are opportunities that these small businesses probably would not have if it weren't for the connections they had. the people i represent, farmers and nonfarmers understand that growing markets adds tremendous value to what farmers grow. the market access program

expands our access into larger world markets and access to these markets helps our farmers compete. i think that is worth preserving. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from's time from ohio's time has expired and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crawford: i must oppose the gentleman's amendment. the m.a.p. program has been critical to my district. private-public partnerships that share the cost of overseas marketing. the forecast for f.y. 2013 estimated to be $140 billion which smashes our export records. agriculture has been a bright spot and generates a surplus. independent studies show that the program is responsible for

$6.1 billion of these exports. this is 35-1 return on investment. how many programs have this type of economic benefit? not many. this reinforces the need for valuable programs such as the market access program. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. and with ta, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the gentleman from from oklahoma. oklahoma i yield to mr. costa the remaining two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costello: i rise in strong opposition -- mr. costello: i rise in -- mr. costa: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. let's face it, we are in a global market, and we, our farmers are not always facing a level playing field. since the creation of this

extremely successful agricultural export program, it has increased america's export by over 500%, that is a success story by any measure. the u.s.d.a. study found that every dollar that m.a.p. spent, it generated $35 in additional exports. this creates an additional $6.1 billion in economic activity annually. over billions and billions of dollars have been achieved as increased exports as a result of this program and thousands and thousands of jobs. it includes safeguards to the taxpayers. the statements by the proponents of this measure, i believe are overreaching because they ignore the fact that it is a matching grarnt and the particular statements they make -- ignore the fact that these were personal expenditures, not the money of the m.a.p., market access program. i urge you to defeat this

amendment. the processors have matched over 100% of the funds that we have provided in this program. it has been a success by any measure and i would urge the defeat of this amendment. i give back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does from texas -- mr. conaway: we yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> ask for a recorded vote. chirment pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in art b of house report 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 17 printed in house report 113-117 offered by ms. titus of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from nevada. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to thank the leadership of the rules and agriculture committees for making this amendment in order. right here in the united states, the richest country in the world, one in four children is at risk of going hungry. last year 50.1 million americans lived in food insecure households, including 16.7 million children.

in my home state of nevada, one in six households struggles with food security, and 170,000 schoolchildren in southern nevada go to school hungry, leaving them unprepared to learn. so you can see hunger is not some crisis that is just happening in remote, far-away lands. it's happening here across our own country and we must address it. that is why i've offered this important amendment that would restore funding to usda's hunger-free communities grant program. this program has received wide bipartisan support and is included or was included without dissent in the senate narm bill. the amendment is a commonsense proposal to ensure that children and their families have access to the nutritious food they need to survive and to thrive. it continues a grant program that includes assistance with food distribution, community

outreach and initiatives that improve access to food. the hunger-flee communities grant program has -- hunger-free communities grant program has helped public-private partnerships, from new york city to arizona. the grants root out causes of hunger and uses strategies to eliminate food insecurity. with the proposed cuts of $20.5 billion to the snap benefits, which i oppose, this amendment becomes even more important. it's morally unacceptable to allow children to go hungry in the wealthiest country in the world, so i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that our communities have the resources they need to tackle hunger at the local level and create healthy, hunger-free communities. again, i thank chairman lucas

and ranking member peterson for their consideration of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from nevada reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise in opposition and claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: we have deep concerns about hunger in america and hunger around the world and every effort to abate that is worthy. however, i must oppose this amendment as it -- one of our efforts at the committee over the last several years is to look for duplicative processes, duplicative programs to eliminate. -- cing those duplicative duplication in these agencies has been a priority and we've held audits, field hearings across the countryside and hearings here in washington receive stakeholder input on the efficiencies of programs

within our jurisdiction. while i support providing healthy food for low-income communities, i believe our base bill makes significant strides in addressing these concerns, both the inefficiencies as well as the effectiveness of the programs. what is even more concerning than authorizing the duplicative program is the offset that's used to pay for more government redundancies. exports are vital to the u.s. agricultural economy. nearly a third of our agricultural sales come from exports. in the last 25 years, the market access program has been highly successful in helping to boost u.s. agriculture exports, expanding jobs and increasing rural income. the amount of money is about $20 million a year. we must look at programs that are effective on a big enough scale to have a really big impact. and this is a program while perhaps impactful on small communities will not affect hunger widely across this country and i respectfully ask

for a no vote on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from nevada reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you. i'd like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the committee, mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i, too, must reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. you know, the hunger-free community program is in the senate bill. i think there's wide support for this. the problem is what's happening here with this amendment is we're taking mandatory money from the market access program which is an important program for a lot of different reasons that was discussed in the -- market access program, which is an important program for a lot of the different reasons that was discussed in the other amendment and putting to into title 4.

i don't think we need to be taking mandatory money and moving it between titles. i think this is something wreck consider when we get to conference. it's in the senate bill. i encourage people to oppose this amendment at this time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: mr. chairman, i would just urge that my colleagues support this important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from nevada yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conyers: -- mr. conaway: we yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-117 on which further proceedings

were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. amendment number 3 by ms. foxx of north carolina. amendment number 5 by mr. broun of georgia. amendment number 8 by mr. blumenauer of oregon. amendment number 9 by mr. blumenauer of oregon. amendment number 14 by ms. kaptur of ohio. amendment number 15 by mr. royce of california. amendment number 16 by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 1 printed in house

report 113-117 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 234. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 precipitationed in house report 113-117 by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 3, printed in house report 113-117 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 267, the nays are 156, the mendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 5, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a fu two minute d vote. -- this is a two-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 presentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 112 and the nays are 309 and the amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in 113-1137 house report on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: part b amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 179 and the nays are 242. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-117 on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 157, the nays are 266. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentlewoman from ohio, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14, printed in part b of house report 113-117. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having isen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 273 and the nays are 149. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15, printed in part b of house report 113-117, by the gentleman from california, mr. royce, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report part b, 113-17 offered by mr. royce of california. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 203, the nays are 220, the mendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 16 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: part b, amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 8, the nays are 322, the amendment is -- the amendment is not adopted. -- 78, the nays are 322, the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the committee will come to order. members, kindly take their conversations off the floor. again, members will take their conversations off the floor or ake their seats.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk to terminate the funding for the emeveraging markets program. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: part b, amendment number 18, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. will members take their conversations off the floor or take their seats. to my right, conversations take their conversations off the floor. to my left in the hall and in the aisles as well, members will take their conversations off the floor. it is now in order to consider

endment number 18 printed in part b and we'll go on to the next step. pursuant to resolution 271, the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that i have proposed would eliminate the funding for the emerging markets program. for those of you not familiar, it assists united states' private and public organizations with agricultural marketing and low to middle-income countries in africa, the caribbean, central and south america, eurasia and the middle east. the emerging markets program fund something $10 million per year in this food stamp and farm bill. over the five-year life of this legislation, funding is $50 million. the emerging markets program duplicates and overlaps the federal government's much larger

marketing agricultural program. by way of example, in 2010 at least 27 of the 82 projects funded by the emerging markets program went to entities that also receive funding from the federal government's marketing agriculture program. emerging markets program expenditures are quite informative. $30,000 was spent on, quote, brazil craft beer school seminars for the brewers association, end quote. $468,000 in hard-earned taxpayer money was spent studying, studying food consumption in china's second-tier cities, the new frontier for u.s. agricultural export opportunities. $212,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent concerning, quote, hotel department for the united states department of agriculture, foreign services, in china.

$174,431 was spent on a, quote, global food safety forum, china exchange for the g.i.c. group. $35,000 was spent on, quote, china beer distributors, education program -- distributors' education program for the brewers association. $142,356 was spent on a, quote, central american microbiological standards program for usda foreign agricultural service and the list goes on and on and on. mr. speaker, since first the emerging markets program overlaps and duplicates america's marketing agricultural program and since, second, the private sector's ability to do this work without federal government interference or assistance and since, third, america's out of control deficit and debt situation slowly but surely increased america's risk of a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy, and since, finally,

america's financial condition forces us to borrow every penny of the $50 million being spent on the emerging markets program, i urge this body to be financially responsible by adopting my amendment to eliminate funding for the emerging markets program. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? the gentleman from oklahoma. for what purpose? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mibs. -- minutes. mr. lucas: i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the emerging markets program, e.m.p., provides funding for technical assistance to public and private agricultural organizations in their efforts to improve market opportunities in low and middle income nations that offer viable markets for our u.s. commodities. this program truly focuses on promoting u.s. products to build repeat customers in markets where incomes are growing to the

point that they can import high-quality products. program resources may only be used to broadly support export of u.s. commodities and products and promote a company's own brand of product is simply prohibited. the emerging markets program requires the participating entities to commit a portion of their own resources to seek export opportunities in emerging markets and to prioritize -- and priority is given, i should say, to the applications which bring the greatest amount of cost-share funds to the project. mr. chairman, there are a number of studies about the amount of dollars that this generates in u.s. agricultural exports. it's one of those things that help us move into markets that have the potential and the growing potential to buy our products. i believe it is a good use of resources and it's subject of course to the oversight of the appropriators and i would ask my colleagues to reject the mendment and with that i would

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: you have two minutes emaining. mr. brooks: i will use those two minutes. the gentleman's response is a sthivene financial irresponsibility. tpwher a triage situation. we have had four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits, we are oking at blowing through the $7 trillion debt mark. if we cannot cut this program a program that's duplicative of other federal programs that, that suggests and reflecting the financial irresponsibility that's put america in the position we are in where we are at risk long-term long term of a debilitating financial insolvency and bankruptcy. thank you, mr. speaker.

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- >> i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 19 printed in rt b of the house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ka castor: i have an -- ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19 printed in house report 113-117 offered by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlelady

from florida ill and a member opposed will each control five minutes. an castor: i rise to address issue that affects the citrus industry. the u.s. tissue the congress approved the u.s.-south america free trade agreement, it's increased tuns for u.s. businesses, farmers, and workers through important access to a vital foreign market. under the agreement over 95% of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products will become duty-free within five dwhreefers date of the agreement and for american agricultural product the u.s.-korea agreement immediately phases out tariffs and quotas on a broad range of product thesms u.s. international trade commission estimates that annual u.s. ag exports to south korea will increase by a minimum of $1.9 billion upon full

implementation. in particular the free trade agreement eliminated south rea's 54% tariff on frozen concentrated orange juice and phases out the tar roughs of fresh grapefruit and fresh orange juice over five years this will allow the american citrus industry to grow and expand and will create jobs in america including jobs related to citrus growers, maritime businesses and ports such as my home port, the port of tampa. this is great news for my home state of florida and other states across the u.s. where they grow citrus. it's vital to our economy and local communities. but we have hit a little bit of a stumbling block with south korea in the implementation of the free trade agreement. south korea is resisting the usda's country of origin certification for u.s. citrus. my amendment seeks to correct this problem by directing the

secretary of agriculture to ensure that the department's certificate of origin are accepted by any country with respect to which the united states has entered into a free trade agreement provide for preferential duty treatment. fortunately the congressional budget office says there's no new cost for this amendment and i'd like to thank my colleagues from florida, congressman webster and congressman hastings, for their support in getting this amendment made ined offer. i'd like to thank chairman lucas and ranking member peterson for their fair consideration. i urge a yes vote on the castor amendment and -- mr. lucas: would the gentlelady yield? ms. castor: i yield. mr. lucas: i think by the expression on my ranking member's face, we agree this is a good faith effort to make an improvement and we will support it.

ms. castor: i thank the gentleman and thank them for allowing this amendment. the chair: does anyone claim time in opposition? 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 is now in order to consider amendment number 20 printed in part b of house eport 113-117. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. grimm: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report

the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. grimm of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from new york -- from new york, mr. grimm, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. speaker. the farm bill requires the usda to create pilot programs that leverage federal-state programs to combat snap retailer fraud. my amendment requires the usda to include at least one of the top 10 largest urban areas as one of the pilot program locations. and to be clear, the bill specifically states that any state or large urban area chosen for a pilate program would not be able to divert resources away from recipient anti-fraud efforts. thus, this program only

supplements those recipient anti-fraud efforts. this is a critically important amendment because we mist ensure that the pilate -- pilot programs account for the unique structure of programs within large urban arias. for instance, in one midwest state, 75% of snap benefits were redeemed in just eight large supermarkets or publicly owned convenience stores. but the urban environment is distinctly different. as an example, new york city has over 10,000 snap retailers. of which 80% are small, privately owned retailers. according to recent statistics, while 80 -- 87% of snap transactions occur in large supermarkets, they account for only 5.4% of retailer trafficking. conversely, 9% of snap retailers are privately owned.

small convenience stores in local neighborhoods. but they account for 80% of snap fraud. therefore, to be successful in combating retailer fraud, we must ensure that we're able to investigate fraudulent activities at these small, privately owned stores. to do this, we must ensure a large urban area is included, at least one of these pilot programs, one location. if we fail to include a large urban area, we will miss a large portion of retailers responsible for 80% of the retailer fraud this amendment will not take a pilot program away from any other state or determine which large urban area must receive a program. it only says that to ensure we receive fully accurate information from the pilots that we must include at least one large urban area. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: will the gentleman yield? mr. grimm: i yield.

mr. lucas: i note to my friend and colleague, i think he's involved in a good measure, i encourage my colleagues to support it. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. grimm: i thank the chairman of the ag committee and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: puzzdus any member seek time in opposition in if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in art b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. hudson: to claim time --

the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. hudson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will -- the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 prinned in house report 113-117 offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson: i urge my colleagues to support our commonsense amendment to allow the states to conduct drug screening on applicants for welfare. if adopted this amendment would join a list of good government reforms contained in the farm bill to save taxpayer money, ensure integrity and accountability in our nutrition system from preventing lottery winners from receiving food stamps to preventing immigrants and drug addicts to receive benefits irk commend the members on the good work done in the farm bill this allows the states

to ensure addicts and criminals are not taking the food out of the mouth of hungry children this debate is not about hungry chirp. we all agree that we need to take care of the least among us, those who need this assistance. we all agree we don't want children to go hungry. what this amendment is about is making sure that adibts d -- addicts and criminals are not taking what is not theirs, taking food from the mouths of the children, taking food from those in need. so i ask my colleagues to consider this as a simple measure, a commonsense measure, and at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise? ms. moore: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for fife mins. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. while i -- i guess i would rebut several of the arguments the gentleman has made.

first of all, commonsense really ain't that common. and this amendment is an example of that. rst of all, it uses very fallacious arguments that, you know, presumes that most of the people who use food stamps also use drugs. i would remind the body that 46% of the people who use food stamps are hungry children. and as the author of the amendment has suggested, quite incorrectly, this is not about hungry children, it is. because if that person in the household who is the applicant is denied food stamps, hungry children will be affected. this is -- it's unconstitutional. this has been through court. it violates the fourth amendment to the constitution. against illegal searches and

seizures. it costs a lot of public money just to humiliate people. they found in florida, for example, that people who don't use public assistance programs are three times more likely to be drug users. and nationwide, they have found that recipients don't use drugs in any greater rate than the general population. in this is a slippery slope not -- in violating one of the basic tenets of our constitution. mandatory drug testing laws are not based on individualized suspicion and the supreme court has upheld that it doesn't uphold the constitutional measure. it will cost $75 for one of these drug tests and for what purpose? just to criminalize and humiliate poor people. and so with that i would reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina. >> at this point i'll yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. mr. yoho: i thank my colleague from north carolina. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to with my colleague in offering this amendment. under current law, states are not allowed to test snap recipients. this amendment would give states the authority to do the testing only if they want to. so give states states' rights. law-abiding citizens who are most in need are those who the program is meant to serve. we're cutting waste to protect this program so we can make sure that the snap dollars are going to those who truly into the it, not those who are able to spend funds on illegal purchases. we must give states all the tools they need to make sure snap funds goes to the people most in need and i thank my colleagues, congressman hudson and congressman lamalfa:, for

working with me on this and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlelady has three minutes remaining. ms. moore: thank you. i would like to remind the body and the sponsors of this bill that snap already has an option to target and punish drug offenders. states right now, without this amendment, can require individuals who have been convicted of a drug felony to submit to a drug test before they can receive snap benefits. totally in line with our constitution. at this time i would like to yield time to mr. mcgovern of -- a great member on the ag committee, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: i rise to oppose this amendment. i just want to say, really? this is what we're debating here right now? i'm curious why the amendment doesn't include drug testing for people who are benefits of crop

insurance or who receive direct payments -- agricultural benefits from the federal government, why aren't we requiring that they be drug tested too? why don't we drug test all the members of congress here? force everybody to go and urinate in a cup to see whether or not anybody's on drugs? maybe that will explain why some of these amendments are coming up or why we're -- some of the votes are turning out the way they are. bottom line is, this is about demeaning poor people. and we've been doing this time and time again on this house floor. enough is enough. we don't need this amendment. this is a bad idea. please vote it down. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. hudson: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hudson: at this point i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to join my

colleagues, representatives hudson and yoho, to again offer a commonsense amendment that will further assist in diminishing the abuse in the snap program. this is a no-nonsense amendment. if you have enough money to buy drugs, you do not need taxpayer money to buy food. this amendment protects the taxpayer from directly subsidizing the purchase of drugs. without this amendment, drug users will continue to use their money to buy drugs and your money to buy food. this amendment gives states the ability to implement a drug screening program in the way that works best for them, but it needs to be part of the snap benefit qualification application. there are already 29 states that have proposals to do this and eight states have already passed this type of legislation. for this type of screening. letting drug users abuse the snap program diverts funds from those who truly need it. that's what we're about here. of course, this is what taxpayers when you talk to regular folks, this is the kind of thing they complain about around the kitchen table, like, why are my tax dollars going toward this? if i had a dime for every time i've heard this, people want this sort of thing to happen for

those that are -- some abusing this program. taxpayers deserve better, the folks that really need the benefits of food stamps deserve better. i ask for a aye vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: sir, how much time do i have left. the chair: the gentlelady has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield time to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: how much time? ms. moore: one minute and 15 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: i thank the gentlelady. i think that this is really the height of -- to indicate, to make reference to people who are on a food stamp program and make a presumption that because they're on a food stamp program that they are using drugs and that they should be tested.

my gosh, i would just say that what about those people who are in direct million payments from the federal government, as the gentleman from california does, an additional $1.2 million from direct payments from the federal government? maybe we ought to start drug testing all of the people who get some sort of a benefit from the federal government. and particularly those folks in this program like the folks who are in crol insurance. we can't find out the names of the 26 individuals on crop insurance that get at least $1 million, $1 million they get in a premium subsidy. and you know what, my friends? dough don't have to have -- there's no cap on the amendment of money, there is no threshold on what they can receive, they have no eligibility criteria. they just get the money and they

don't even have to farm the land. why don't we drug test those folks today? and not demean people who have fallen on hard times. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson: may i inquire the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining and the right to close. mr. hudson: i thank you. i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. again, i ask my colleagues to consider this as a commonsense measure that does nothing to take food away from those who need it. but it makes sure the integrity of this program is what helps. we don't make any presumses about the folks on the program but we think that states need this tool so that they can make sure that folks who are on the program are the folks who need to be on that program. and i thank the gentlelady, my colleague from connecticut, for endorsing this farm bill this year, because we do eliminate the direct payments and as she

alluded, i agree, that's something that -- a practice that we should end. i appreciate her endorsement of that piece of it. so, mr. chairman, with that i'll conclude by just saying i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure that does nothing but allow the states to have the tools to use drug testing should they see fit when administering this program. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. thisis not commonsensecal, is unconstitutional. the majority wants to excuse itself from taking food away from 46 million people who are hungry and it's a proxy for criminalizing the food stamp program in order to get away with it. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from orth carolina.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23 offered -- printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 23, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. conaway of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. i offer this amendment because serious reforms to the snap program are difficult. because the program continues on auto pilot, even after the farm bill expires. snap is defined as an appropriated entitlement meaning that appropriations can continue to fund the program regardless

of action taken by the ag committee. this amendment is about the accountability of snap. while snap funding is provided the annual appropriations act, the level of spending for appropriated entitlements is not controlled through the annual appropriations process. instead of level of spending for appropriated entitlements like other entitlements is based on the benefits and eligibility criteria established in law. in general, the maximum snap benefit is set at 100% of the usda's 2015y food program or thrifty 015y food -- food program. benefits are reduced by 30% of a family's income on the expectations that families contribute to their own food purchases. this amendment would simply reduce by 10% the this rifty food plan calculation in any year that snap is not authorized, otherwise bringing the agriculture committee back into the operations. in this way, all parts would -- all parties would have an incentive to come to the table

and negotiate snap reforms while drafting the next farm bill. it's important to note that this amendment does not end snap. nor is it expected this amendment will actually ever go into force. it simply lowers the benefit if and only if congress fails to reach an agreement on how to re-authorize a snap program. further, it does not impact the baseline for this year's farm bill and does not cost any money to implement. mr. speaker, i urge adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition this to amendment and yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: this is anunhe is -- this is unprecedented. this would quite literally hold millions of our country's poorest children, working families, seniors, the disabled hostage to this congress' ability to compromise and pass a farm bill. that is almost laughable. this congress hasn't been able

to come to an agreement or a compromise on anything. and if the farm bill is not re-authorized by september 30, food stamps for all families of four would be cut about $64 a month. right now more than 47 million americans, including more than 19 million children, rely on food stamps to put food on the table. they don't rely on the program because they want to. they rely on the food stamp program because they have no other choice. they either do not make enough money to afford food for their family, because of the paltry minimum, or they are temporarily unemployed because of the historic economic recession this country has experienced. this is a misguided amendment, it would impose steep cuts for each and every one of the households. the nonpartisan center on budget and policy priorities estimated that passing this amendment could result in nearly 15% cut

for households. that's $64 for a family of four when they only receive an average of less than $430 a month. already 90% of snap benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month. around the same time that food banks see more and more men, women and children enrolled in the program, turning to the food bank because their benefits ran out. all social safety net programs, including food stamps, have historically been protected from automatic across-the-board cuts. this was true when the law was enacted in 1985, 1987, 1990, 2010. the budget control act of 2011. snap was also protected in simpson-bowles which recognizes the need not to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in this country.

christian leaders continue to call on this body to form a circle of protection around programs that help the neediest americans, including those on food stamps. the circle of protection should surround this amendment. i urge my colleagues to heed that request and to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, or chairman, i don't have any other speakers and i believe i have the right to close so i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the right to close. he reserves his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, can you tell me how much time remains? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. delauro: let me get a minute and a half to -- two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. if congress doesn't do its job, we don't get punished, poor people get punished? we have it backwards here. why should we hold poor people hostage to the fact that somehow this congress can't get its act

together? we don't hold, you know, people who receive, you know, subsidies -- other subsidies who quite frankly are well off, we don't hold them accountable for our lack of ability to get things done around here. but this is yet another -- this is yet another in a series of endments to diminish the plight of poor people, to demonize programs like snap, and i really think it's unfortunate. we're going to punish poor people because we can't re-authorize a supplemental nutrition assistance program. what a terrible idea. and i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree with us on this and reject. this i yield back the balance of y time. the chair: the gentlelady has up

with and a half minutes remaining. ms. delauro: thank you. i think it's ahazing once again we singled out a group of people, many of whom were work, lost their jobs through no fault of their own and find themselves in a situation where they have to access the food stamp program to feed their family. on the other hand, those people i singled out earlier, the 26 individuals who get at least $1 million in a premium subsidy for crop insurance and they have no income threshold at all, these folks if we can't get to a compromise, they'll continue to get what they're getting. they're eating well. i would bet they have more than three squares a day. let's think about who this amendment targets. 70% of snap households include a child, senior or disabled individual. the average household has a gross monthly income of $744. average snap allocation is already less than $1.50 per

meal. 55% of snap dollars go to households with incomes below half of the federal poverty line. this targets the poorest, asks them to pay a price for congressional farm bill politics. let's talk about the members of congress. if they can't get it to a compromise let's make sure they don't get their salary and that we do something to those who are responsible for not getting the job done. don't take it out on the poorest people in this nation. this is unprecedented. it is immoral. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. the chair: the time of the the gentlelady has expire. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: many of the arguments that have been made speak to why we need to do this deal. we need this sense of urgency on the other side to get the farm bill this amendment won't take effect until next farm bill.

but we're trying to trag this bill across the finish line. the nutrition program and their supporters couldn't give a rat's rear end if it gets passed because their program goes through. they're at an advantage to production agriculture. this is not about snap, this is not about the benefits, this is simply saying i don't necessarily think snap is perfect. and the only way to get at a snap reform is to have snap beneficiaries, which are in every single congressional district, as opposed to farmers, ho are not in every single congressional district, to have them say they want to get something done. right now they're on the take side and they're not part of the process and they don't have to be. argue and flame against the rule tofse thus how don't argument that we have to do our jobs. i have folks back home who motivate me to do my job more

than anything up here this amendment would simply say snap has a role, the snap beneficiaries have a role in communicating their member of congress to get the work done on a timely basis. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the no have it. mr. conaway: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 prinned in art b of house report 113-117.

it is now in order to consider amendment amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 113-1717. for what purpose does the gentleman -- 117. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise in mr. butterfield: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 113-117 offered by mr. butterfield from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. butterfield: i rise to propose an amendment to the nutrition titetholve bill. i will mention that my amendment has been scored by the congressional budget office as budget neutral and not adding to direct spending.

my amendment is very simple. it will expand the items available for purchase under the snap program to include items of personal hygiene. historically, the purpose of the snap program has been to provide financial assistance to poor individuals to purchase food. nearly 50 million people in this country currently rely on snap benefits to provide food for themselves and their families. no one wants to depend on snap for their next meal but we have a responsibility to our neighbors to provide and care for them in their time of need. but for the poor, need does not just stop at food. while snap currently provides financial assistance to purchase certain types of food, there is no mechanism to help needy people purchase personal hygiene items like toothbrushes and toothpaste and toilet paper and feminine items among other items used for their personal care.

items that think -- that they cannot afford. my amendment expands snap eligible purchases to include personal hygiene items to be determined by the secretary of agriculture, ensuring that poor families have access to personal hygiene products is the right thing to do. giving families the ability to purchase personal hygiene products will save us money in the long run. poor personal hygiene can have far-reaching consequences on an individual's health and result in more trips to the emergency roop and increased uncompensated care. research indicates the lack of proper dental hygiene can increase risk of heart attack and stroke, exacerbate diabetes and kidney disease and for expectant mothers increase the risk of delivering a preterm low birth weight baby. as we come out of this recession, and state governments like that in my home state of north carolina are refusing to

expand medicaid, now is the time to give the poor flexibility to buy products to improve their long-term health. it is especially critical as we stand here today to debate this cut to the snap program. chairman lucas and all of those responsible for this bill thank you for the work you've done and thank you for allowing me time to speak this evening. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> the supplemental nutrition assistance program is wrust that, nutrition assistance. it's designed to provide nutrition assistance to low income individuals and their families. personal hygiene items have never been eligible under the nutrition assistance program and never should be eligible to snap. we should be using our scarce

resources to provide food not personal hygiene. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and reserve my time. the chair: how much time -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i yield to the the gentlelady from wisconsin such time as the she may consume. ms. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. i think that the majority has really raised the point that historically we have not aloud purchases beyond food for the food stamp program. but it's not that poor people don't really need to be able to do that. this amendment is very, very narrow. and i can recall from personal experience some of the things that many families run out of in a family, that are directly related to their nutritional needsing like a baby bottle. you've never seen a family

frantically trying to find the last baby bolt or nipple that the baby has bitten off of and not be able to deliver the formula to the child because they don't have a baby bottle. and it'll cost over $2 to make that purchase. certainly toilet painer is sort of inversely related to eating. and you know, the need for feminine hygiene products is something that just -- or deodorant, is something that adds to the dignity of being alife. it is quite true that many americans during our great recession only had food stamps o depend on, not even tanf benefit, so if you're looking for a job, you really do want to have deodorant and toothpaste to be able to make that. so i think that this is budget neutral and it is a small concession to make given the

draconian cuts we're making in the program already. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady yields back, the gentleman from north carolina -- the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford i am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared -- mr. butterfield: i am going to ask my colleagues to look very closely at this amendment, it's not a radical amendment, it empowers resip yens of snap to buy simple items related to nutrition, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes and the like, i ask my colleagues to allow an up or down vote on this and vote aye on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i respect the initiative here, i

appreciate that, i think if it were kind of wandering -- i think we're kind of wandering into uncharted waters because we're talking about a farm bill and nutrition title and this is not, i don't believe, in our purview to authorize the use of nutrition funds to address personal hygiene items, that's why i have reservations about this. i appreciate the effort put forth and i recognize the value of personal hygiene, i'm a big believer in perm hygiene. i just don't think it's -- in personal hygiene, i don't think personal ct to idress hygiene in the nutrition bill. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 prinned in house report 113-117, for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b amendment number 26 printed in part b of house report 113-117 offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. marino and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: this amendment finally brings transparency and public accountability to the $80 billion-plus food stamp program. it directs the government accountability tufse establish a

pilot program in nine states that will allow the g.a.o. to collect and make public information showing how our food stamp dollars are being spent. as a prosecutor, i presented all the facts to the jury so that they are able -- so that they were able to make an accurate decision based on the evidence. it is inconceivable to me that at a time when all americans are demanding accountability and transparency in government, we are allowing $80 billion plus a year to go out the door with virtually no idea on how it's being spent. to put that into context, $80 billion a career is more than double the amount of money the department of homeland security received in the appropriations bill we approved on june 6 and roughly the same amount that was cut by sequester. i have had several interesting arguments made to me against this bill, driven primarily by

big business who are more interested in par pro tecting profits rather than taxpayers. opponents have argued that this would be costly for retailers to implement. first the information required to be reported and made public is information that retailers are already required to keep under existing law. i also find it ironic that opponents are arguing that because there may be a compliance cost for a program that it's voluntary for -- that is voluntary for retailers we should forgo any meaningful oversight over how these taxpayer dollars are being spent. some claim this is food surveillance. this amendment is not food surveillance. it is oversight and accountability. at a time of high debt and deficit, it is incumbent on congress to scrutinize fully every federal dollar spent. i have also heard opponents argue that snap is efficient

because usda says it only has a 3.8% error rate. this is a false red herring argument that is meant to distract from what this amendment would do. the error rate referred to involves the percentage of benefits that either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but in excessive amounts. the error rate has nothing to do with how the taxpayer dollars are spent. having that information is critical, especially as we date things about how much to scale back the snap program or whether it is inappropriate to allow the purchase of certain items with snap dollars. i have heard that there were no hearings about the snap program in conjunction with this farm bill. i agree that there should have been hearings. nevertheless those hearings would be more productive if they had all the information as to how programs are operating.

my amendment would give us and the american people the ability to make informed policy decisions about the program. that is why my amendment is supported by a range of groups from the physicians committee and responsible medicine to americans for limited government. mr. chairman, again, i want to emphasize that this amendment is about transparency. it is about oversight and accountability. we have to have the facts at our disposal to determine what if anything to do. it is about good government. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this commonsense amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> this claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: mr. speaker, this is one of the most terrible amendments that has ever been brought before this house of representatives. it goes against the very grain

of what america is about. and i don't care if you're rich, i don't care if you're poor, i don't care if you're in the service, i don't care if you have to have snap. you are an american. and americans today, if they're tired of one thing, they're tired of the government prying into their lives, under is vary lance that's happening -- under surveillance that's happening right now on the 6:00 news, on our major papers. the one thing is the mistrust of a government surveillance program. this has everything to do with surveillance. it's exactly what it is. it's a food surveillance program from my good friend, mr. tom marino. what this will do, you tell me if it isn't, it will require retail food stores to monitor,

to put in a surveillance system, to collect and report back to the secretary of agriculture detailed information that identifies what food items, what type, what size of purchase by those who are on snap. now, this isn't about snap. you've gone into the grocery stores. everybody goes into that grocery store as an american, to purchase, to buy the food, the basic things that he needs. to survive. you can't put a surveillance on the snap person without putting a surveillance on every american that goes into that store. asinine. e -- how such an amendment that is. and this eagerness of this

declaring of war on snap recipients. we're declaring a war on the soul of america itself. and i don't care if you're liberal, i don't care if you're moderate or are you conservative -- or you are conservative. every american ought to be concerned about this. you're not going to be able to put a surveillance program over what the snap folks get without putting a surveillance program over all americans. just think, that's how big our system is. right now there are over 460,000 different items on the market shelves. there's 15,000 new ones going on every year. what's going to happen there? and for the consumers, there's going to be a cost. yes, there's going to be a cost.

but these retailers don't go and print money and make it. you know who's going to pay for that cost? for this surveillance program? that is unneeded? it's going to be the customers. and so, ladies and gentlemen, the ith all due respect to gentleman, let us ease this war against the poorest who are among us. i remind everybody every day that the fastest growing group f recipients who are receiving benefits from food stamps are our veterans. the very ones who have gone and have put their lives on the line , who come back maimed, that have to depend upon food stamps. who went and fought overseas so

we could be free from surveillance. an here's an amendment that wants to put a surveillance on them. let's look at this and see it for what it is. it is an awful surveillance program. and i have respect for the gentleman. but it's totally misguided. and does great damage to the heart and the soul of this nation. because you cannot discriminate going into those grocery stores against the poor recipient of snap without discriminating and taking away the freedoms of every single american. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. marino: i will close then. how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. marino: ok. you know, keeping track of this, it's already done by a bar code. so there's no additional cost. and there's no surveillance. there's no cameras, there's nothing checking on anybody. we're not asking who is buying, we're asking what is being purchased. with my colleagues, it's always a war. a war on women, it's a war on this. now it's a war on people using food stamps. we should be doing this anyhow. it's a law that should be done by the stores, that's just not being enforced. hardworking taxpayers deserve the accountability. they deserve to know how their $80 billion is being spent and on what. i wonder what my friend across the aisle is concerned about. perhaps what the results may show. but we don't know at this point. so the american people are entitled to know how their money

is being spent. and as i said, there's no cost associated with this. they're doing it by bar code anyhow. everything goes through a store now is bar code. so it's just reporting the information. if anything it's misguided. what is misguided? it's $80 billion in 2012 and $82.5 billion projected in 2013 that's going to be spent and there's no accountability for it. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. >> on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in art b of house report 113-117.

for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. chabot: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 27, printed in house report 113-117 offered by mr. chabot of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognizesed for as much time as he may consume. mr. chabot: thank you. i introduced this amendment to reform the supplemental nutrition assistance program, food stamps, or snap program, and specifically the electronic benefit transfer account program within the snap or within the food stamp program. the snap or food stamp program is in dire need of reform. and i think most people realize that. and a lot have spoken out about that already. under the current

administration, the obama administration, the number of people on food stamps has increased by 16 1/2 million persons. in 2011 the snap program handed out $84 billion in food stamps in one year alone. the snap program is now the second most expensive after medicaid and it's the fastest growing of all the federal government's 80 welfare programs. this cost is unsustainable. reforms can be made without impacting, in my belief, those who truly need snints and there are some who truly do need assistance and we ought to help them. under current law, unused benefits are rolled over each month and can pile up for an entire year. the current law is terribly flawed and encourages fraud and abuse. my amendment would increase the integrity of the program by ending the rollover and recouping leftover benefits. instead of allowing benefits to remain unused and account for an

entire year, my amendment would return unused snap or unused food stamp money or before hes to the u.s. treasury after 60 days. two months. which i believe is a very reasonable period of time. those actually using the benefits or those truly in need would not be impacted. the intent of snap or food stamps is to assist those in need on an as-needed basis. if a recipient hasn't utilized all thoss -- utilized all those benefits, those benefits could be used to help others who do need them or reduce our almost $17 trillion national debt. clearly this is a program in need of reform. my amendment addresses the out-of-control growth that we have witnessed with this program over the past four years and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and -- i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say on behalf of the chairman of the agriculture committee, i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this good

government amendment before us today. mr. lucas: a state agency must -- mr. hudson: state agency must -- mr. crawford: the gentleman's amendment simply shortened that time period the snap recipient has to claim their benefits to 60 days. i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense amendment and i would yield back to the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman and reclaim my time and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? if not, the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: i'll just make a couple more stainlts and then yield back. i would also note that almost 80% of the farm bill or spending , about $1 trillion over, all goes to the food stamp program. so we're talking about a very significant part of the overall farm bill. the g.a. notes in a report, and i quote here, it's inconclusive regarding whether snap or food stamps alleviate hunger and malnutrition in low-income households. think of that. it's inconclusive whether or not it thilely reduces hunger --

whether or not it actually reduces hunger or malnutrition, and the people it's supposed to be helping, if that's the case why are we spending all these dollars? this doesn't go to the entire food stamp program, obviously. it just goes to a certain item and that's reducing from a year, allowing those dollars to pile up to a reasonable time which is two months. i would also note that the g.a.o. report goes on to say that the amount of snap money paid in error is substantial, totaling in the billions of dollars. so it's clearly something that should be reformed and if there are no other speakers then i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to. the chair: it is now in order to

consider amendment number 28 printed in part b of house report of 113-117. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: part b amendment number 28 printed in house report 113-117 offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: i rise to support in support of my amendment to end the agreement between the usda and government of mexico. now this partnership began back in 2004,