people will receive their social security. it was reformed by president reagan and speaker of the house tip o'neill. of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the house resolution, house resolution 378, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding certain provisions of the senate amendment to h.r. 2642, relating to the secretary of agriculture 's administration of tariff quotas for raw and refined sugar and providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 379, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding

certain provisions of the senate amendment to h.r. 2642, relating to crop insurance. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 11, 2013, at 10:15 a.m., that the senate passed senate 1276. that the senate agreed to with amendments house concurrent resolution 58. with best wishes i am, signed incerely, karen l. haas.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 67, house resolution 380, resolved, that it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order for the chair of the committee on agriculture or his designee to move that the house insist on its amendment to the senate amendment to h.r.

2642 and agree to a conference with the senate thereon. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution house resolution 378, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding certain provisions of the senate amendment to h.r. 2642 relating to the secretary of agriculture's administration of tariff rate quotas for raw and refined sugar. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by representative pitts of pennsylvania or his designee and an opponent. section 3, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, house

resolution 379, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding certain provisions of the senate amendment to h.r. 2642 relating to crop insurance. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by representative ryan of wisconsin or his designee, and an opponent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. foxx: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: house resolution 380 provides for a motion to go to conference with the senate on h.r. 2642, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act also known as the farm bill. mr. speaker, this rule authorizes house agriculture committee chairman frank lucas to make a motion to go to conference with the senate on the farm bill and provides for consideration of two resolutions expressing the sense of the house regarding specific provisions in the farm bill. conference committees are a crucial step in resolving policy differences between the house and senate and i'm encouraged that the house is taking this step to provide certainty for farmers across this country by re-authorizing federal agriculture policy. the house proposal is not perfect, but it knows federal agriculture policy in the right direction and my hope is during a conference committee with the senate we can find common

ground. additionally, the rule makes in order the consideration of two resolutions that express the sense of the house on crop insurance and the u.s. sugar program. the first resolution expresses the sense of the house that conferees should agree to limit crop insurance based on average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000. this commonsense proposals ensures that crop insurance is appropriately targeted to those who need it most. the second resolution instructs conferees to advance provisions to repeal the administration of tariff rate quotas and thus restore the secretary of agriculture's authority to manage supplies of sugar throughout the year to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices. i strongly support this resolution as it restores free market principles to the u.s. sure gar program. this -- sugar program. this rule provides for the business of legislating and resolving differences between our two chambers to find common

ground and move forward in re-authorizing federal agriculture policy. i urge my colleagues to support this rule. the motion to go to conference, instruct tions to provided by this rule. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i am pleased that we are finally going to conference on the farm bill. i believe strongly that we need five-year rize the bill to provide some clarity and provide some certainty not just for our farmers but also for the millions of americans who rely on nutrition assistance to feed themselves and their families. and i need to just say a few words about the process. i did not think i have ever seen a motion to go to conference that two motions to instruct

conferees to the majority party in the house is all part of one rule. this is kind of an odd precedent, mr. speaker, but there's a lot of odd things going on around here during these last few days. we see major pieces of legislation, appropriations bills coming to the rules committee that have never even been considered on the floor, and all of a sudden they are brought to the -- before the house under a closed process, but i think it's pretty clear that the regular order is -- has been discarded in this house. putting that aside, let me say that i'd like to take most of time here to talk about the issue of hunger in america because this bill is very relevant to that subject. after a $20 billion cut to the snap program was voted down by the house in june, the republican leadership sadly decided to double down on the cruelty with a nearly $40

billion cut. that bill also not only passed, and i want to thank the brave republicans who stood with us, who listened to their own constituents and listened to their consciences and joined with us in voting no on that $40 billion cut. supporters of those cuts say it's all about, i quote, quotations, reform. this is not about reform, mr. speaker. it's about trying to destroy a very important part of the social safety net. i'm happy to talk to anyone and everyone about how we can improve snap. where there is waste or there is fraud or there is abuse, we should crack down on it. but the house bill takes a sledgehammer to a program that provides food, food, mr. speaker, to some of the most vulnerable neighbors. c.b.o. says that that the nearly $40 billion cut would throw $3.8 million low-income people off of snap in 2014 and millions more in the following years.

these are some of america's poorest adults as well as many low-income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages. let me say that again, mr. speaker, so there is no confusion. people who work but who don't make enough to feed their families would be cut from this program. if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families would also lose their free meals, free school meals. and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their snap benefits. we all stand up here and tell our constituents how much we care about our veterans and how much we honor them, but to throw 170,000 of these veterans off this food program because they can't find work? that's unbelievable. that is unbelievable. and it's unacceptable. mr. speaker, it is not easy to be poor in america. it is not a glamorous life. it is a struggle just to make it through the day. the average snap benefit is

$1.50 per meal. housing costs, transportation costs, childcare costs they all add up. it fighting huger used to be a bipartisan issue. think of people like bob dole and bill emerson, george mcgovern and tony hall. i'm hopeful once again we can get-dirnl' hoping once we get to conference that we can resurrect that bipartisan spirit and work together to strengthen our nation's food assistance programs. i would also note that we are approaching november 1, a day of reckoning for my republican colleagues. automatic cuts to snap are already scheduled to take place. if they do not end the republican shutdown, we are going to see even more terrible, terrible consequences for the hungry in this country. we have already seen some assistance delayed or denied. if this shutdown isn't ended snap, w.i.c., meals on wheels, and emergency food assistance

programs will be devastated. i would say to my colleagues, you can't approach the budget in a piecemeal way. you can't approach the social safety net of this country in a piecemeal way. if you miss a part of that net, that makes up the social safety net this this -- in this country, then people fall through the cracks. people are falling through the cracks because of this ridiculous shutdown that my republican friends have thrust upon this contry. we don't need -- we shouldn't be here talking about a shutdown or about whether we are going to default on our debt come october 17. we should be talking about how we create jobs for people or how we strengthen programs to end hunger in america. and how we make life for people in this country better not worse. and yet here we are as we are about to go to conference on the farm bill dealing with this shutdown that is making hunger worse in america. i would urge my colleagues to

once again come to the floor with a clean continuing resolution. bring up the senate bill. the senate bill that is at republican numbers. the numbers, the budget numbers that my republican friends said they wanted. the sequester numbers that i think arefall, but let's bring i think are that awful, but let's bring it up. i'm willing to pass a short-term resolution at their numbers to keep the government going. it's the least we could do. i would urge my colleagues before the day is out to bring that kind of resolution to the house floor. so i urge my colleagues to pass a clean continuing resolution and remove the sword hanging over the heads of the hungry in this country. i would also urge all of my colleagues as we go to conference to insist that in that conference we fix this terrible, terrible mistake that

this house of representatives made when they passed a $40 billion cut in the snap program. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize my distinguished colleague from the state of pennsylvania, mr. pitts, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak in favor of the rule to consider it a resolution to reform the sugar program. at the time we passed the farm bill this summer, opponents of sugar reform were telling us that the program didn't cost taxpayers a dime. now just a few months later the program is costing taxpayers $250 million. sugar is the only commodity program in the farm bill that had no reform. even as other commodities were modified to put more risk on farmers, sugar continues to get its sweet deal.

cotton, peanuts, dairy farmers will all see changes in the coming year, but not sugar farmers. it's a sweet deal that is sour for consumers, for taxpayers, and for businesses across the country. for consumers, those who use sugar, high prices mean they are paying an additional $3.5 billion a year. for taxpayers, low sugar prices mean bailouts, rising to hundreds of millions of dollars. for businesses, for those who use and consume sugar in the food industry, high sugar prices place them at a distinct disadvantage to foreign competition. the department of commerce estimates that 127,000 jobs were lost in food industries between 1997 and 2011. there are 600,000 jobs across the country at risk. my resolution does not repeal the sugar program, it is very

modest reform, modest reform that would allow the secretary of agriculture to stabilize the price of sugar. . stabilizing the prigse is good for farmers who can rely on more constant price and not be subject to wild swings of the market. with the truth about the sugar program even more clear now, it's time we had an honest debate about fairness in our agriculture programs. this does not require the import of a single additional pound of sugar. it gives the secretary flexibility to meet domestic demand. , so i urge members to support the resolution and support the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'm very proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the ranking member of the agriculture committee, mr. peterson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i reluctantly rise to oppose this

motion because we have been trying to get this farm bill resolved since may of 2010, back when i was still chairman of the committee. so we've been working on it this long and, you know, we need to get this resolved. but what's being done here today is unprecedented as far as i can tell in the history of the house. ere we're giving these two sense of the congress resolutions to the majority. from what i can tell, this has never been done before. and we're relitigating issues that were settled on the floor of the house when we debated the farm bill. and these motions take a contrary position to the position that the house took. so, we're going to be voting to, you know, go against the position that we took here just a couple months ago. so that's my problem with this. historically, you know, the minority gets a motion to instruct and that's been the way

it's been and all the years i've been here that's the way it's been but there's never been a situation like this. i think it's a bad precedent. it's going to be confusing to people. and, you know we need to get to conference to get this resolved. in spite of the fact that given the way this conference appears is going to be put together, i am not so optimistic that it's going to work because you're bringing people from outside of the committee into this process, which is what blew this thing up in the first place in june. and it's not going to make it any easier and we're going to work together and try to get this resolved but the way all this is coming down is making our job a lot harder rather than a lot easier. which is the wrong direction as far as i'm concerned. so, i encourage members to oppose this rule. this is unprecedented, it's

apparently being done because it's the only way they can get the votes. we're doing a lot of things around here because of that and that's not the way we should do things. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 2642 makes commonsense, market-oriented reforms to agricultural policy which is why it's time to begin conversations with our senate colleagues on the path forward, which ultimately gets these important reforms enacted into law. this bill isn't perfect but it puts us on a path to provide certainty to america's farmers and ranchers by adopting a five-year farm bill that will actually become law. this measure is the result of more than three years of debate and discussion, including 46 hearings and a two-year audit of every farm program. the bill repeals and consolidates more than 100 programs administered by the united states department of agriculture, including direct

payments. it eliminates the streamline's duplicative and overlapping conservation programs and trims traditional farm policy by almost $23 billion. the bill eliminates direct payments and ensures no payments are made to those who do not actually farm. the bill also provides regulatory relief for farmers and ranchers. it eliminates a duplicative permitting requirement for pesticides and prohibits the e.p.a. from implementing the unjustified and unscientific biological opinions of the national marine fishery service, until there is an unbiased scientific peer review of those opinions. the bill requires regulatory agencies across the government to use scientifically sound information in moving forward with their regulatory initiatives. it requires the secretary of agriculture to advocate on behalf of farmers and ranchers

as other agencies move forward with regulations affecting food and fiber. the bill also eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for seed importers. finally, h.r. 2642 repeals the underlying 1949 permanent law and replaces it with the 2013 farm bill. this is important, mr. speaker, because without re-authorization , farm policy will revert to rmanent statutes established in the 1938 and 1949 laws which are drastically different from current programs. the permanent statutes exclude many commodities such as rice, soybean and peanuts. support prices much higher than current levels and prevent new enrollment in various conservation programs. permanent agriculture law established by the agriculture adjustments act of 1938 and the agriculture act of 1949 does not

reflect current farming and marketing practices. -- practices, trade agreements or market circumstances. farmers, as well as taxpayers, will benefit from a modernized bill. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member on the ag committee, mr. peterson, when he talks about how unusual this process is, with the sense of congress resolutions that are put into this rule, basically to instruct conferees on what to do. it's highly unusual that the majority gives itself to these sense of congress resolutions. but this whole process has been really strange. i should say to my colleagues, you know, i come to this floor every week and i talk about the issue of hunger and food insecurity in america. there are 15 million people who are hunger, 17 million are kids,

i think it's something we all should be ashamed of. i'm on the agriculture committee. as well as being on the rules committee. i'm on the subcommittee on nutrition. i was anxious to get on that committee so i could talk about the importance of a social safety net, about the importance of making sure that people in this country have enough to eat. and much to my surprise, mr. speaker, the subcommittee on nutrition held a total of zero hearings on snap. the full committee held no hearings. and then, even more surprising, mr. speaker, was that the nutrition title wasn't even written in the agriculture committee. it was written in the majority leader's back room somewhere. by god knows who, wrote this thing. but it never came to the agriculture committee. it was never brought up for a hearing. it was -- there was no markup. there were no amendments that were to be offered.

and then it showed up at the rules committee magically and was brought to this floor. a $40 billion cut that would throw 3.8 million people off the freshman. -- program. that would throw 170,000 veterans off the program. no hearings, nothing. nothing. and my colleagues like to talk about regular order. that's not regular order. that's just blowing up the whole process. i mean, you know, if my friends have concerns about the snap program, which by the way is the most efficiently and effectively run federal program we have, with one of the lowest error rates, i wish the department of defense had those kind of low error rate, then you hold the hearing. you talk to the people who are on the program. you talk to the people who administer the program. you do this thoughtfully. you do it so that people who don't deserve to get the benefit don't get it. and people who deserve to get it get it. but my friends come to the floor with this sledgehammer approach

that's mind -- approach, this mindless approach of just gutting the program. close to $40 billion. and we're trying -- we're slowly but surely getting out of this terrible economy and as we do, fewer and fewer people will be on the program. that's the way it works. when the economy's good, fewer people need the benefit. when the economy's bad, more people need the benefit. but to pull the rug right from underneath people who are still struggling, you know, my friends say, all we want to do is make sure that able-body idea people who can work, work. -- able-bodied people who can work, work. most of the people who are able to work work who are on snap. but they earn so little that they qualify for this benefit. if my friends want to help lift people off the program, raise the minimum wage. but there's something wrong in this country when you get people working full time and earning so

little that they're still in poverty. that's what we should be addressing. but rather than going to regular order, rather than having the agriculture committee, the committee of jurisdiction, come up with a proposal, the majority leader takes this in his own hands and does it on his own and brings it to the floor and we're all supposed to just take it. so i hope my -- and i want to again thank the handful of republicans that had the guts to stand up and do the right thing and vote against it. we came very close to defeating it. but i will tell my friends right now that people like me are not going to support a farm bill int makes more people hungry america. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, i respect my colleague from massachusetts. and it's obvious that every time we have anything on this floor

or in the rules committee where we're dealing with the subject of hunger, that he is extraordinarily passionate about the issue. mr. speaker, republicans care about americans who are hungry. we care about hunger issues. he makes it sound as though we are heartless people. we are not. what we are doing here is our best to preserve the program for the truly needy and those who are hungry in this country. my colleague says it's the most efficiently and effectively run program in the country. with low error rates. that is not what the research shows. it isn't even what tv programs find out on their own, with very little research. they go out and they find the terrible abuse with the w.i.c.

program, the snap program, which used to be called the food -- food stamp program. but it was given this supplemental nutrition assistance program name some time ago to get away from the term food stamps. but that's what it is. it's a food stamp program. and almost everybody in this country knows of people who have abused the program. we don't want to deny help to truly needy people. and if we can make these reforms in this program, mr. speaker, we have a chance to preserve the entire program for those who are truly needed -- frowho truly need it -- who truly need it. mr. speaker, h.r. 3102, the nutrition reform and work opportunity act of 2013, as i said is designed to preserve the

integrity of the snap program or food stamps for families and especially for children who rely on food stamps. it's cost -- its cost-saving reforms are a step in the right direction and are long overdue out of respect for needy americans and taxpayers. this bill makes the first reforms to the program since the welfare reform act of 1996, and these reforms were strengthened during a rigorous amendment process on the house floor. despite media reports to the contrary, house republicans are not cutting snap for individuals who currently meet the program's eligibility requirements. instead, our reforms focus on eliminating fraud and abuse that exists within the program and removes from the programs individuals who do not qualify for the benefits.

mr. speaker, i think that bears repeating. what we are doing is eliminating fraud and abuse and removing from the program individuals who do not qualify for benefits. that's what the american people expect us to do in our oversight processes here. because of several well-documented and legally questionable efforts by president obama's department of agriculture and by the individual states that administer the program, snap benefits have been extended to a number of recipients who would not otherwise qualify. . the growth will strain the safety net until it breaks, necessitate -- necessitating much higher taxes and indiscriminate cuts that would hit the poorest americans the hardest. from a moral perspective such an

outcome would harm the very people programs like snap are intended to help and that he is unacceptable. that is why i voted for h.r. 3102 when it passed the house on september 19. the bill ensures benefits are reserved for legal recipients and aren't directed to illegal immigrants. the bill closes the loopholes related to electricity bill assistance, gives states the authority to require drug testing for recipients, and prohibits felons from receiving snap benefits. h.r. 3102 reinstates work requirements for all able-bodied adults without dependents receiving snap benefits. an overextended, unchecked snap program won't be capable of serving the citizens its pro-- it's proposed to help. it's the job of this congress to ensure the program is held accountable as we are stewards of taxpayer dollars and provide

a safety net for the needy. for the first time, the house separated farm policy from the food stamp program, which is only appropriate as 80% of the so-called farm bills in the past was spent on providing nutrition assistance to needy families. the farm only portion of the farm bill authorizes farm programs through fiscal year 2018. however, h.r. 3102 authorizes appropriations for snap only through fiscal year 2016. if enacted and if the two bills were addressed on five and three-year intervals respectively, this would decupple snap from the authorization of farm -- decouple snap from the authorization of farm programs. considering them independently going forward will help take politics out of the equation and allow for reforms that will sustain both categories of programs in years to come.

with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: before i yield to the gentleman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i strongly disagree with the gentlelady's statement. strongly disagree. my friend talks about oversight. there were no hearings, none, none. she talks about research somehow shows that there's lots of fraud, waste, and abuse. what research? the general accountability office, usda have document documented the fraud, waste, and abuse in the program is minimal. a little over 2% error rate and much is underpayment. people are not getting what they are entitled to. enough of this demonizing poor people. enough of diminishing their struggle. we ought to do the right thing and make sure people in this country have enough to eat. that shouldn't be a radical idea. at this point i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. oregon: i could not agree

more with my friend from massachusetts who has spent the time getting inside this program. in fact, if the republicans really care about hungry people in this country, these legislative efforts are a strange way to show it. they are restricting the ability of governors to grant waivers in places where people have no jobs -- have access. governors, republicans and democrats alike, have requested these waivers because people need it and the system wouldn't meet their needs. if they are concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse, look at the crop insurance program which as a higher rate of abuse than the minuscule amount with the food stamp program. and yet they are in the process not of reforming crop insurance, but enriching it. and putting in another provision, the so-called shallow loss position.

they are cutting benefits for poor people, increasing payments for wealthy farmers, and not dealing with simple, commonsense reforms that would give more value to the taxpayer, not at the expense of the neediest americans. this is kind of a through the looking glass situation. there are two proposals on the floor that sense -- sense of congress that i'll probably support. i have worked on a bipartisan basis to try and reform the egregious sugar program. to try and move in a modest sense to reform crop insurance. but we could do far more and note that these have bipartisan support. it is outrageous that we are giving more money to farmers who need it least, shortchanging farmers and ranchers in states like mine in oregon, cutting into the benefits for poor people who have no alternative to take away the right of the

governor to provide waivers for them. it's an alice in wonder land situation that exemplifies the weird space we are in today. mr. mcgovern: yield 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: if we could return to regular order, if we'd have honest debate on this floor about getting more value for taxpayers, we could come forth with a farm bill at a fraction of what it costs now. it would be better for farmers and ranchers. it would be better for hunters and fishermen. it would be better for the environment. better for the taxpayer. i strongly hope that we'll stop this alice in wonderland experience, reopen the federal government, and get back to doing our job right. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves her time.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. i oppose this rule and the $40 billion in disastrous cuts to the food stamp program that the house republican majority is trying to make law. a cut of $40 is billion from the food stamp program. it goes against decades of bipartisan support for the fight against hunger in the united states. it's a reflection of how extreme today's republican party has become. even former republican senator bob dole has called these cuts egregious, an about-face on our progress in fighting hunger. if these cuts become law, over four million of the nation's poorest citizens, children,

seniors, veterans, the disabled would go hungry in the united states of america. the most bountiful nation in the world. this is even, as republicans continue to get $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies, to some of america's wealthiest families and agribusiness. the food stamp recipients, or ly of four, it's $23,000 less, that's what gives them eligibility for food stamps. let's talk about the crop insurance program. you've got 26 beneficiaries of that program today who get at least $1 million in a subsidy from u.s. taxpayers. they do not have any income threshold. they can get the money under any set of circumstances. and the top 1% of the most profitable operators, farm operators in the nation each get $220,000. you want to talk about the most

needy? these are not the most needy. cut out the $90 billion in the subsidies to the richest people in the nation. as the cuts are not awful enough, the majority's plan cruel, mean-spirited restrictions. for instance, it encourages governors to slash families from the food stamp rolls who cannot work or a job training program for 20 hours a week. it rewards these governors with half the savings. allows them to use the money for tax cuts for the wealthy or whatever else they want. that means -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: even if the food stamp recipient, including parents with young children, and those with disabilities, is actively searching for a job, the house majority would end their benefits. this is immoral. it goes against the value that we hold dear in the united states of america. cutting four million americans

who live on the edge while providing subsidies for the wealthiest is wrong and i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the cruelty that this rule embodies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, once again this legislation, the rule in this legislation underlying it, is not designed to abuse or demonize poor people. what we are trying to do is to save these programs for the truly needy. and to respond to my colleagues about -- ms. delauro: will the gentlelady yield? ms. foxx: no, ma'am. ms. delauro: do you think -- ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i control the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina has the time. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, we are

not simply doing oversight on the farm bill and on agriculture issues. the house has been doing its job of oversight throughout the federal government. we have been doing that throughout this entire session. we are looking to find fraud, abuse, and waste in every program. it just happens that today we are talking about this program. but as you know, mr. speaker, almost every day we bring forth programs -- we bring forth legislation that will help us identify waste, fraud, and abuse and do everything we can to protect hardworking taxpayers in this country who are providing the funds to take care of the truly needy in this country and to allow us to help those people. and that's what this legislation

does. mr. speaker, the work of making these improvements and reforms to long-standing federal policy is not easy, and i commend chairman lucas and the members of the agriculture committee for their thoughtful work. i was pleased to work with them and to have three commonsense amendments included in h.r. 2642 when it passed the house. the spending safeguard amendment will cap spending on the farm risk management election program at 110% of c.b.o. predicted levels for the first five years in which payments are disbursed. mr. speaker, let me point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this amendment passed with bipartisan support. as did most of the amendments to that legislation. in the event government's cost projections prove completely

wrong, the amendment will ensure taxpayers are not forced to pay automatically the difference between washington's mistake and reality. my second amendment, the sunset discretionary programs amendment, will automatically end discretionary programs in the 2013 farm bill upon expiration of the bill's five-year authorization period. many programs authorized by the farm bill are authorized indefinitely. this amendment will require congress to justify a program's continued existence and funding through regular re-authorization efforts. as our national debt approaches $17 trillion, mr. speaker, congress simply cannot afford to add to the number of costly federal programs that are on autopilot. this was a really excellent

amendment, mr. speaker. finally, congressman keith ellison, my democrat colleague and i offered the crop insurance transparency amendment which will require the government to disclose the names of key persons or entities receiving federal crop insurance subsidies. specifically disclosure would be required for members of congress and their immediate families, cabinet secretaries and their immediate families, and entities in which any of the preceding parties are majority stockholders. this information is already recorded, but members of the public have to petition the government under the freedom of information act to acquire the data. it shouldn't take a four-year request for the american people -- foia request for the american people to figure out whether their leaders are receiving

government farm subsidies. this bipartisan amendment makes -- makes this information available to the public without a foia request. mr. speaker, we want transparency, and my amendment takes us much closer to that. i appreciate chairman lucas' billing -- willingness to work with me on these amendments and look forward to seeing them maintained during the conference committee. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me say to my colleague from north carolina, i look forward to the day when she and her republican colleagues bring to the floor a bill to go after fraud, waste and abuse in defense contracting. but instead, they have chosen to go after poor people. and not even giving them the benefit of a hearing. there was no hearing, no markup on this at all. this came out of thin air.

and the majority leader's office. this wasn't even brought to the committee of jurisdiction. this is astoundsing. and my friends are -- astounding. and my friends are talking about reform. this isn't reform. this is a joke. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentlelady who is managing this legislation and indicate that i wish we did have mr. mcgovern -- wish we did have, mr. mcgovern, a bipartisan commission. if anybody remembers the late members who founded the select committee on hunger to stamp out hunger. i wish we had the kind of passion that drew robert kennedy to appalachia to show america that the hunger that existed in this nation was not a respect of race or region or maybe even the

sensitivity of martin luther king in the same year. tragically they both lost their lives in 1968. who was galvanizing poor people to come to washington because they wanted jobs, they wanted to eat. here we are on the floor of the house, mr. mcgovern, and i read from you a statement made by the gentleman from iowa last night on the floor. we need to start the long march to start to reform the expansion of the dependency class. who is in the dependency class? he charges that president obama has put 48 million people on food stamps. how has president obama put 48 million people on food stamps? people are hungry. 16% of the poor people in america are children. and what our friends want to do in the reform is if you get a school lunch and a school breakfast, that's not evident that your family needs food stamps. so maybe this family is dysfunctional, maybe these mothers and fathers are desperate. so now you're going to put them

through another maze. you haven't documented that they are fraudulently taking food stamps. but you're going to drop them off of food stamps and say, guys, if you want to get out of your hospice bed or you want to get out of your sick bed or you want to get out of your disabled bed and you have these children that are getting food, lunch and breakfast, you got to come and reapply. because of something ingrained about those who are getting a hand up are in a dependency class. i didn't say that. robert keb i -- kennedy didn't say. that let's put a clean c.r. on the floor by the way to open the government and stop talking about the idea -- i just can't understand. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: she doesn't have money to pay for her children to eat. clean c.r. and get this on the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady had expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, who is the ranking member on the nutrition subcommittee and the agriculture committee, the subcommittee that should had held a hearing on this snap bill but never did, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady, ms. fudge. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my colleague, mr. mcgovern, for yielding. i just had the opportunity with some of my colleagues to go to a community shelter today to serve lunch to some of the poorest people in our community. the community shelter is so others might eat and i listen to my colleagues talk about waste, fraud and abuse. i am disappointed and embarrassed to serve in a house where we would not want to take care of the poorest people in this nation. some of the poorest people in our nation, many of them children, seniors and veterans, depend on snap. snap puts food on tables of struggling parents who need to send their children to school

properly nourished. it also gives low-income working families, by the way who represent nearly half of all snap recipients, and seniors the necessary support they need. last month this house passed a bill that cut nearly $40 billion in food stamps. it is both inappropriate and inexcusable to cut food assistance when more than 7% of the nation remains unemployed and we will not pass a jobs bill. our economy is struggling to produce enough jobs so that families can eat without needing this assistance. and we all know that beginning november 1, snap recipients will see a reduction in their benefits when the 2009 recovery act temporary benefits ends. benefits will be reduced by as much as $300 per year according to the c.b.o. this cut will result in less food for more than 47 million americans. mr. speaker, at some point we have to be honest with ourselves. we either have to believe that we are doing our jobs by taking care of the people of this country, or we are only taking

care of a few and i say to those of who you believe that all of this is about fraud, waste and abuse, go to the same shelter that i went to today. go into your neighborhoods and your communities because we all have them. there are poor people, hungry people, hungry children everywhere. i want you to go and tell them that it's ok for you to cut $40 billion in food stamps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i'll continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a leader thon issue of food security and so many other issues to combat poverty, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his determination to eliminate hunger. not only in our own country but throughout the world. there are 46 million americans living in poverty. 16 million of whom are children. instead of focusing on serious ways to lift people out of

poverty and into the middle class, republicans have insisted on placing a larger burden on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable effectively kicking them while they are down. that is what the republican farm bill nutrition title did when it was passed on september 19. it would have are decimated the antipoverty snap program and would leave hundreds of millions of veterans, children, seniors and millions of working poor hungry and with nowhere to turn for a meal. and snap has one of the lowest fraud rates amongst government programs. house republicans were unsuccessful in their attempts to pass a farm bill this summer, so republican leadership doubled down on this immoral stance. surrender the governing of the house -- excuse me, to the extreme tea party fringe of their party and pass $40 billion in cuts. which means cutting 24 meals a month for a family of four.

this would be in addition, i meet add, to snap cuts already scheduled to go into effect november 1. and this means about $29 less per month for food for a family of three. these cuts to the snap program are really heartless. and let me tell you, i know from personal experience that the majority of people on food stamps want a job that pays a living wage. snap provides this bridge over troubled waters during very difficult times. in my own congressional district, for example, over 22,000 households would have been impacted and more than 1.6 million homes throughout california. and in 2011, snap lifted 4.7 million americans out of poverty, including 2.1 million children. in addition to feeding the nation's hungry, snap is vital to our economy. for every $1 increase in snap

benefits -- may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. for every $1 in smap benefits we receive back in economic activity $1.70. without snap millions of families would fall into poverty, millions more of americans would suffer extreme hunger and our economy would create even fewer jobs. and let me remind you that mals -- that millions of people on food stamps are working. their wages are stagnant and low. many make less than $8 an hour. yet they are working every day to feed their families. paying billions in farm subsidies and cutting snap benefits for the most vulnerable is not a value that the majority of americans embrace. cutting snap benefits is not the american way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i am prepared to close whenever the

gentleman from massachusetts is prepared. so i will reserve until the gentleman is ready. mr. mcgovern: would the gentlelady be willing to throw us a few minutes on this side? we have a lot of speakers. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, we're prepared to close whenever the gentleman from massachusetts is prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: i remember one lent you a couple of minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me this time. the republicans continue to demonstrate just how far out of whack their priorities are. here we are in the 11th day of the republican government shutdown, a shutdown for the sole purpose of denying health care to millions of americans. i guess america shouldn't be surprised. after all, last month a majority pushed through severe, painful cuts to the nutrition programs for hungry families. we're now moving toward going to a conference with the senate on these damaging cuts. by insisting on these nearly $40

billion in cuts. the republicans have made clear where they stand. even clearer where they don't stand. now i understand, i know that the gentlelady talks about the truly needy. but what she's really saying is the somewhat needy, the sore of needy, the kind of needy, the needy needy, they need not apply because they're not in need of .ood stamps when you look at the number, $20 billion was the original number, which is a block number, $20 billion. without consequences to who they would hurt. when that failed they said, well, what will work? let's use $40 billion. yeah, $40 billion will do it. a nice, neat number. without any consequences to who might get hurt. someone had a bright idea on the other side and said, this number will work without a rationale for the number, without any understanding of what the impact would be. so we know where they stand. they don't stand with 900,000

veterans who receive food assistance each month. they don't stand with 2.1 million children who have been kept out of poverty by the snap food stamp program. the food stamp program. they don't stand with the seniors who have chosen -- who have to choose between food and medicine. or the families of disabled children or the military families who turned to food stamps to stretch their budgets. but heaven for bid we suggest taking away subsidies from big oil. or tax breaks for owners of corporate jets. what does that say about republican priorities and their vision? the fact is their vision leads to a world where millions more go hungry. can i just have an additional 15 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. crowley: in new york city alone, the republicans cut would -- the republicans' cut would result in 130 million fewer meals. that is unacceptable to me. and it ought to be unacceptable to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the fact that it's not

unacceptable tells us something we need to know about our republican colleagues' view of struggling families in this country. they don't care about their struggles. they wouldn't recognize a needy person if they tripped over them on the street outside the capitol. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have to say, i would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of whether we recognize poor people or not. some of us probably grew up poorer than anybody on the other side of the aisle. i'm one of those people. i have great empathy for people who are poor but i am so pleased that we live in the greatest country in the world where we have the opportunitys to overcome -- opportunities to overcome spofert because of the great opportunities -- because of the great opportunities that are given to us in this country. with that, mr. speaker, i would

like to give to the gentleman from massachusetts the three minutes that he requested from e, in the spirit of comity and goodness. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts has an additional three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for her graciousness in allowing me -- our side a few more minutes. i appreciate it very much. mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i will offer offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the thousand vote on the senate's clean continuing resolution so we can send it to the president for his signature today and end this government shutdown. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and i will urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will appear in the record. mr. mcgovern:, at this time i'd like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: mr. speaker in the spirit of goodness i ask

unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to house joint resolution 59, the clean c.r., and go to conference on a budget so that we would end this idiotic government shutdown and not go on recess later today. the american people expect us to act today. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request until it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield for unanimous consent request, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.resolution 59, the clean c.r., and go to conference on a budget so we end this republican government shutdown. . the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.

mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentlelady from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that -- ms. e bring up the kelly: that the house bring up the clean c.r. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained. mr. mcgnch: i yield for unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. beatty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, the clean c.r., and to go to conference on a budget so we end this unnecessary republican shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. kildee: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, the clean c.r. and go to conference on a budget so we can finally end this republican shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised the request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from massachusetts. . mcfworn feather -- mr. mcgon: for the purpose of unanimous consent i yield to mr. davis. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, the clean c.r., to go to conference on the budget and end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained without appropriate clearance. mr. mcgovern: for the purpose of unanimous consent request i yield to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 the clean c.r. and go to conference on a budget to end

the government republican -- the republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate cleern. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. breen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, the clean c.r. and go to conference on bauget so we can end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advise that request cannot be entertained without prior clearance. mr. mcgon: i yield to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 69 and go to conference on bauget so we can end the republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised the request cannot be entertained

absent appropriate cleern. mr. mcgon: i yield to the gentleman from n, mr. horsford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. horsford: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 the clean c.r. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised the house cannot entertain that request without appropriate compleerns. mr. mcgovern: at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nolan: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to house resolution 59 the clean c.r. so that we can go to conference on a budget so we can end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i support the idea of the house and senate reconciling their differences on the farm bill and going to conference. it is certainly long overdue. i caution, however, that i will not vote for deep cuts in the snap program or the food stamp program, nor do i believe that democrats will vote to take food away from those americans who suffer from food insecurity. they have shut down the government and now they want to shut down food assistance to the most vulnerable. many of whom live in my congressional district. open up the government, open up food banks, open up meals on wheels for seniors and give a hand to those who are hurts. -- hurting. it's good for families and good for farmers. thank you, sir, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has

expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i continue to reserve. sproy the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. mcgovern: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. clyburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. i want to speak on this bill because i have worked very hard over the years helping to put together various farm bills and this is one that i feel very, very good about from the outset. i even felt ok when the bill came back from the senate, although i had some issues with the senate version. i thought that what we were doing made some sense. but we reached a point with this bill, $40 billion in cuts, to

the food stamp program, not only empact negatively those people who would receive the stamp -- those stamps in fighting off poverty or hunger but i it -- but it would do tremendous harm to various community outlets, tores, family-owned markets, where so much of the income of small businesses depend upon this program and what it will do to help further the economy in various communities. i'm also very concerned that in this legislation we treat ecipients of food stamps as if they are responsible for what may or may not have taken place with drug addiction to children

or to siblings. i think that's something erroneous about drug testing in order to receive food stamps. i think that if you're going to have drug testing to get federal assistance, then we ought to test all those people who get farm subsidies and see whether or not they are deserving of such assistance from the federal government. nd then i saw that there's reference to -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clyburn: thank you. and then i saw some reference as to whether or not people who may ,ave been convicted of a felony what it would do to their qualifications as well as their

family qualify keagses. as one instance, i hope this is out of the bill, we talked about barring for life a person who may be convicted of a felony. that is not the kind of treatment our society ought to be visiting upon anybody who may or may not have made a mistake early on in their lives. so mr. speaker, i do believe that there's much in this farm bill that ought to be supported, but i really believe these extraneous things ought to be taken out of this bill, so we can't do it now but i hope when it gets to conference that those smoother heads will prevail and we will have a passionate piece of legislation that all of us can support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has

expired. >> mr. speaker. parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> mr. speaker, several unanimous consent requests have been offered and ruled out of order because they have not been cleared -- precleared by bipartisan leadership, it's my understanding that they have in fact been precleared by the democratic side, would it be in order to ask the republicans if they would preclear the unanimous consent requests so we can vote up or down on a clean .r.? the speaker pro tempore: as indicated in section 956 of the house rules and manual it is not proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the chair to indicate which side of the aisle failed under the speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous consent request. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire as to how much time is remaining and whether the

gentleman from massachusetts is prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remain, the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from north carolina has eight minutes remaining. ms. foxx: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time they have gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: before i close i'd like to yield -- i yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. angevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up senate amendment to h.res. 59, the clean c.r. and go to conference on a budget so we can end this republican government shutdown. it's the right thing to do. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that

request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding me additional time. i think it's important that we be heard on these issues. one of the reasons we are so passionate about reopening the government is because this government shutdown is hurting people. and it's hurting the most vulnerable people in our society the most. one of the things that's troubled me about the direction the republican leadership is taking this congress is that it has become unfashionable to worry about the poor and the vulnerable in this people's house of representatives. time and time and time again, my friends seek to balance by budget by cutting programs that help the most vulnerable. the $40 billion cut in snap will throw $3.8 million poor people off the program. it will throw children off the program.

it will throw working people off the program. and a lot of people, contrary to what my friends say, who are on snap, war if a living. they work full time. if you're earning minimum wage, working full time you still qualify for snap. for people in this country who are hurt, depending on us to be there, to make sure there is a social safety net to make sure people don't fall through the cracks. one of the reasons we object to this nutrition provision in the farm bill is because it will hurt people. we were sent here to help people. this used to be a bipartisan issue. democrats and republicans used to join together. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans want to see the government reopened also. we've sent many pieces of legislation over to the senate. but the senate has refused to act on them. we hope very much to get the government opened again.

we are not opposed to helping the truly needy in this country, we want to help those people, and we believe that by reforming the legislation related to food stamps, that we will be able to save the program for the truly needy. mr. speaker, negotiations are an absolute necessity in a divided government. conference committees provide an avenue for the house and senate to meet and resolve policy differences. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, provide a motion to go to conference on the farm bill so we can move the re-authorization process forward. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution and urge the passage of the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous -- ordering the question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. many of my colleagues on either side of the aisle have stated their preference for, as the gentlelady from north carolina said, opening the government. they want to open the government as soon as possible and would vote far clean bill. mr. speaker, we can have that vote right now. i'd like to give my colleagues the opportunity to be heard right now in this chamber and show the american people whether they want to reopen the government today or not. mr. speaker, as a result, i request that this vote be conducted by a roll call under clause 2 of house rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of the yeas and nays ill rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. in response to the gentleman from maryland, under clause 2-a of rule 20, a record vote is conducted by electronic device unless the speaker directs otherwise. this vote will be conducted electronic vote. mr. hoyer: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. does that mean if you ruled that we would take the vote empty -- in the manner in i which -- in which i requested, we would do so. the speaker pro tempore: it's the speaker's discretion and the speaker has the rule that we will take this vote by electronic device. mr. hoyer: so my colleagues will not have the ability to express themselves in that manner? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will reduce to five minutes any electronic vote on the question of adoption. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219, the nays are 193, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223, the nays are 189. the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the request on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia for documents in a third party civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i

have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, daniel j. strodel, chief administrative officer.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to resolution 380, i move to take from the speaker's table h.r. 2642, with the house amendment to the senate amendment thereto in, insist on the house amendment and agree to a conference requested by the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. act to k: h.r. 2642, an provide for the reformed and continuation of agricultural and

other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, i yield back my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i support the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. the question is on adoption of the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> mr. speaker. >> the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to instruct at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. peterson of minnesota moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreing votes of the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill, h.r. 2642, an act to

provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes , be instructed to, one, receive -- recede to section 1602. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peters: i'd like unanimous consent -- mr. petri: i'd like unanimous con -- mr. peterson: i'd like unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, and the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i will yield myself such time as i may consume. this motion contains two instructions for the farm bill conferees. one is to support the permanent law provisions in the senate farm bill and what we currently have and have had for years and years. the second is to support the senate position of a five-year re-authorization.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. he house will come to order. the gentleman from minnesota may continue. continue.on: mr. peterson: the second is to support the senate amendment of the five-year supplemental nutrition assistance program. to be clear, this motion keeps intact the long standing alliance needed to pass a strong farm bill. america's two largest farm organizations, the american farm bureau federation and the national farmers administration, both wrote in opposition to h.r. 2642, the farm only farm bill. the farm bureau president wrote, it is frustrating our members that this broad coalition to support for passage of the complete farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor of interests that have no real stake in this farm