tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 19, 2013 10:00am-5:01pm EDT
administration said this was a terrorist attack, had they been more forthcoming, i would say it would be interesting to see whether we would still be talking about what they are not answering today. herb.jeremy we've been talking about benghazi. the house is coming into session. they are to be debating the rules on the continuing resolution, funding of the government and d funding of obamacare. the senate is doing a hearing on efficiency. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 19, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable
jason t. smith to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. as the house republicans prepare to shut down the government and threaten the global economy with the debt ceiling blackmail, it's ironic
that they refuse to allow their members to vote on their own spending bills. they even refused to allow a conference committee with the senate to resolve the budget impasse. i suppose it should be no surprise that their denial extends to climate change and the future of the planet. but americans don't have that luxury. between this summer's wildfires in the west, last year's drought, superstorm sandy and the recent horrific flooding in colorado, americans are seeing the impact of climate change. tuesday, matt russell, a fifth generation iowa farmer, gave a quick history of what climate change looks like in iowa. in 2008, they suffered a 500-year flood. in 2010, there was another
series of 100-year floods. the next year, the missouri river wiped out thousands of acres of farmland, some of which will never be farmed again. and in 2012 was the catastrophic drought. in half a decade, iowa saw the first flooding and the worst -- worst flooding and the worst drought in over a century of record keeping. this is what climate change will look like and it will get worse and more extreme, which is exactly what's happening this year. may 4, a foot of heavy wet snow, the most snow ever recorded in i-in may. then it -- in iowa in may. then it rained, the most rain recorded in the month of may in iowa. last month was the drought. last month the driest month,
even worse than last year's epic drought. and in july was one of the coldest on record with temperatures in the 30's. and now they're experiencing one of the hottest septembers in record. the hottest days in 2013 came after labor day. multiple days of over 100-degree temperature. this is what climate change means. the wrong weather at the wrong time. their joke is that february came in may along with all the rain for the summer and september came in july and july came in september and now they wonder what month is going to show up in october. but it's not a joke to the people who are trying to farm. it's not a joke for the taxpayers who are picking up the cost of crop insurance which totaled almost $2 billion last year. farmers in iowa and elsewhere are working to be part of the solution, but, you know, what they can't afford is for congress to continue wasting
time with debate, ignoring science and spending billions of dollars on disaster relief. they want us to spend money upfront, not just to save money in the long run, but the lives and indeed the environment for all our families to enjoy. listening to america's farmers or just looking out of the window and paying close attention to the news tells americans all they need to know -- the science is real and the time for action is now. farmers, small business, utilities, insurance companies, universities, we all should insist that congress stop playing games with the budget, threatening the global economy with debt ceiling blackmail and the future of the planet. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. thank you, mr.
speaker. this week america was once again shocked by the tragic shootings at the navy yard in washington, d.c. and once again it raised the issues of how we are handling mental health to stop this terrible violence. when you look at the background that's reported in the general media about aaron alexis, whose responsible for the shooting in the navy yard, we see a record of being arrested multiple times, receiving treatment by the military hospital. he had been hearing voices in his head. he said he sent three people to -- he was worried three people would keep him awake. he checked into multiple hotels to avoid the voices. he was also -- had episodes of shooting firearms.
more recent -- recently, there was also a case in georgia where michael hill clutched a butcher knife over his parent's head, attempted to set the home on fire, made deadly threats over social media, was bipolar. told police he was off medication, stolen a firearm that had 408 rounds of ammunition and entered a school. what america has done when dealing with people with mental illness is far short of what we should be doing, it's not surprising we are failing the system. america has replaced its psychiatric hospitals with prisons and bridges for the homeless. pennsylvania some years ago had 20 psychiatric hospitals and eight jails. now we have more jails and less hospitals. one out of every two women in those jails have a mental illness.
when we use such things as consider background checks for those who obtain guns? in 2010, when 14 million attempts were made to purchase weapons, there were 72,000 denials because those folks had pinged positive because they had an arrest record or in-patient obligatory stay. of those 34,000 had a felony conviction indictments. 13,000 were fugitives but there were only 44 prosecutions. the background checks does not begin to deal with the millions of people who have a psychiatric illness and go untreated. there was a lack of in-patient and out-patient treatment options and we need to begin finally to deal with these problems. what we need are several aspects, and in the next couple weeks, i'll be offering a package of legislation that finally works towards dealing with these so we do not continue to say our primary methods of treatment for americans with mental illness
are jails and homeless. what i see we need to do is, first, we have a lack of in-patient treatment options. there was 500,000 psychiatric beds in 1955. now, there are less than 40,000. what we need to do is increase the options here available for people with in-patient and outpatient treatment. two, we need to get serious on research for those with mental illness. nimh has a little over $1 billion in money they can spend on research and little is spent on those with serious mental illness. indeed, most with mental illness are not violent, but when you see someone with a selected set of symptoms with a serious mental illness we know they may be more at an increased risk. particularly those who have history of delusions, paranoia and interest in violence. what happens in general, from the time of onset of first symptoms a person may wait an average of 110 weeks before
they get into treatment. in addition, we need more research on medications. 11.4 million american adults suffer from serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, bipolar, depression disorder but two million are not being treated. we need more effective research. three, federal laws that are meant to protect confidentialate, h pimbings pa, have frustrated physicians and family to share information. many times doctors and other officials cannot get the person into treatment. schools, college and high schools, do not share information with parents because they are afraid of getting sued. mental health professionals wish they can talk more with patients when clarifying these boundaries. four, law enforcement officials need more training. police officers in the front line of dealing with the violently mentally ill, they need to know how to handle
them. the primary responders ought to be paramedics, those who are trained to deal with health issues, to remove the stigma, from the very beginning we need to be dealing this with a health issue. 1,000 homicides are year have done by those who have mental illness. we need to make sure we have care at community mental health centers. unfortunately, there's issues when dealing with medicaid. we need to review what they do with spending and v.a. hospitals need help. we will continue to do this to make sure we effectively treat mental illness. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington, ms. delbene, for five minutes. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. speaker. congress needs to act now and support our struggling economy. like many families and
businesses across my district, i have been worried about congress not facing our nation's fiscal challenges. we need to stop lurching from one crisis to the next, budgeting 90 days at the time because it's the most expensive and inefficient way to budget. i understand you don't just manage a business for a few months at a time but you plan for the long term. businesses and families deserve a long-term budget that provides them with the visibility needed to plan for the future. every day we fail to do this. congress is harming the economy. we must take a balanced, long-term approach to the budget and end the irresponsible across-the-board cuts that were triggered by sequestration, and we must act now to prevent a government shutdown. i remain committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a budget that reduces the deficit and creates jobs. we must come together now to get this job done. thank you, mr. speaker.
and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, for five minutes. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, prominently featured on the white house website, president obama issued the following memorandum to all heads of executive departments and agencies. he said, my administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. we will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness from government. well, unfortunately, despite one serving as the white house chief of staff, secretary of treasury jack lew apparently never got that memo. you see, on june 7, shortly after the news broke that the internal revenue service engaged in the reprehensible
practice of targeting conservative-leaning political groups, i sent a letter to secretary lew with a handful of questions relating to his time served as white house chief of staff. specifically i asked, first, when was the first time secretary lew, as chief of staff, became aware of the i.r.s. targeting of tax-exempt groups, including rumors or media reports of targeting? independent of his knowledge of the i.g.'s investigation? second, given that the i.r.s. commissioner made numerous trips to the white house between october, 2009, and december, 2012, i asked secretary lew, again, as chief of staff, did he attend any meetings with him? next i asked, if anything was discussed relating to the i.r.s. investigation conservative-leaning organizations and theirction tax-exempt status? finally i asked if secretary lew as chief of staff was involved in any or had any knowledge of rumors of conservative groups that were being targeted or of media reports highlighting the i.g.
investigation relating to the targeting or any i.r.s. personnel involved in potentially inappropriate targeting of conservative groups? well, sir, my letters went unanswered for week after week after week. so i made numerous emails and phone calls to the treasury department requesting a reply to my letter. finally a letter came. rather than simplying my questions, lew chose not to answer any of my direct questions. so now three 1/2 months -- three and a half months have now passed since i asked those questions. i still cannot get an answer from him so i'm here today to encourage you to join me in the fight to get answers from secretary lew. the president's memo was very clear. his government is to be the most transparent in the history of this great nation.
then we have to bring secretary lew up to speed on that memo. jack lew served as chief of staff of the president while some of the most egregious, reprehensible behavior ever displayed by the i.r.s. took place. the american people have a right to know about what he knows about the i.r.s. scandal and when he he knew it, what involvement he had, and as chief of staff with personnel at the i.r.s. it is essential to the functioning of a representative government that the citizens, the voters who are represented, have confidence in the integrity of the system. if they don't, the government won't be trusted. governments must earn that trust. that means that the men and women who manage the day-to-day affairs such as he must be trustworthy people. and to maintain their confidence, the public, men, and women must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. it is that principle the judges adhere to when they recuse themselves from cases where they have an interest that may appear to have an interest in the outcome. the public must be assured that the outcomes generated by the
men and women in washington are not influenced by the outcome of their decisions, otherwise the system, whether it's corrupt or not, will have the taint of corruption, and that's just as bad. the president was right to emphasize transparency, and it is essential to the proper functioning of a representative government. it's up to the citizens and their representatives to demand that transparency and the propriety and that it maintains. so again i ask my colleagues and you the american public to join me in demanding the openness that president obama promised. secretary lew, i'm still waiting for those answers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. ildee, for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this morning to strongly oppose the deep and extreme cuts to nutrition programs that once
again are being brought to the floor by the republican majority. h.r. 3102 we call the more hunger less opportunity act takes a bad idea and makes it worse. cutting billions, literally billions of dollars in aid for the working poor, people who struggle every single day literally to put food on the table. this bill is heartless. it's gone from bad to worse. we have seen this movie before. in june when the republicans brought $20 billion in cuts to the floor as a part of the farm bill, it derailed the farm bill, broke what had been a bipartisan effort for as long as anybody around here can remember. and now $40 billion in cuts. 3/4 of the households, 3/4 of the households receiving snap including child, senior, somebody who is disabled this
legislation literally punishes those folks. republican desire for whatever reason, inprehencible to many of us, to deprive even the neediest americans with the basic necessity, food, as i said derailed the farm bill process and now has the chance to risk hurting more americans. this bill would shamefully and literally take food out of the mouths of nearly four million children, seniors, and disabled. i urge my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to join me in opposing this legislation. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, i rise today to relate disturbing but not surprising news about the president's health care law coming back from my district in
pennsylvania. countless neighbors of mine employed by sesame place, which is a division of sea world entertainment, have been told that their hours will be cut back, presumably to comply with the crushing costs and regulations associated with the so-called affordable care act. adding insult to injury, they are being told that their health care is being terminated. simply put, mr. speaker, president obama made promises to the american people and right now those promises are not being kept. people were told that if they like their plan that they could keep it. we were told that the health care law would not raise taxes, only to see that 20 taxes are being used to fund this law. these promises have been broken, and my neighbors are seeing it and seeing it up close and they are seeing it personal. this law is hurting real people in my district and around the country and it must be repealed and must be replaced. i yield back, mr. speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it is with great sadness that i rise to remember he three of my constituents who tragically lost their lives in monday's shooting along with nine other innocent victims at the washington navy yard. the entire washington metropolitan area is still in shock at the horrific news. in maryland's fifth district, home to many who serve or previously served in military and civilian roles at the navy yard, communities are grieving the loss of sylvia frazier, frank kohler, and kenneth proctor. in addition, michael arnold,
kathy garde, jodge roger ohnson, vishnu pandit, martin bogrog, arthur daniels, mary francis knight, gerald reed, and richard michael ridgell lost their lives in this senseless attack. i along with all my colleagues offer my condolences on behalf of all who live in the fifth district and in our country. i wish to take a moment to reflect from this floor on their lives of hard work and dedicated service. sylvia frazier had been an information assurance manager at the naval sea systems command since 2000. because she loved interacting with people so much, she took a night job at the wal-mart in waldorf, maryland, where she was beloved by her co-workers and members of our community. sylvia is survived by her parents, james and eloise, and
six brothers and sisters. frank kohler, frank was a defense contractor at the navy yard. he and his wife, michelle, who works at p.a.x. river naval air station lived in tall timbers, maryland, and loved to go boating and fishing on the chesapeake and florida. he was the past president of the lexington park rotary club and served as king oyster at the st. mary's county oyster festival, welcoming visitors to the celebration. i live in that county, it's a wonderful celebration, frank will be missed. frank also leaves behind two college-aged daughters, alex and megan. kenneth proctor worked as a civilian utilities foreman at the navy yard. and was in building 197 on monday morning to get breakfast on his way to work. he had been a federal employee for 22 years and his eldest son,
kenneth jr., just recently enlisted in the united states army. he's also survived by his former wife, evelyn, with whom he is still very close and their younger son, kendall, who is in high school. i want to thank the first responders. i want to thank them for quickly and courageously answering the call on monday morning and put their own lives on the line to stop the shooter and prevent further loss of life. they demonstrate the best of america along with all the dedicated men and women who serve in the navy yard and in the navy in uniform and civilian. they continue to enrich our nation through their outstanding service. mr. speaker, particularly pointianant for me because my father-in-law and my mother both worked at the navy yard during the course of some of their
careers. i have been on the navy yard numerous times. it should be and we thought was well protected. 12 people found that it was not protected enough. my thoughts and prayers are with the family of those who lost their lives and with all who are recovering from their injuries. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. hompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the importance of manufacturing to our nation cannot be overstated. createing products domestically supports local economies and creates family sustaining jobs, but so many domestic companies also serve as a source of pride for towns, cities, and regions
of the country. the zippo manufacturing company and their identify connick lighter are headquartered and manufactured in the pennsylvania's fifth congressional district. which i have the honor of representing. it is mckean counties' largest employer with 900 hardworking men and women in a city of 8,000. zippo has been making lighters since 1895, today 160 countries around the world buy zippo products. zippo's a part of bradford's community identity, part of the identity comes from the fact that american companies were once renowned for building things to last. zippo backs its lighters with a forever guarantee. the parade magazine, a national publication made note of this fact in a recent article titled, putting america back to work, five ways made in the u.s. is staging a comeback. it's companies like zippo that gives american made a great
name. that keeps the world buying u.s.-made products and keeps jobs in america and expands the american work force. the key to our economic recovery is tapping into these gems. utilizing domestic injuring, technology, and innovation, as well as a homegrown work force to revitalize american manufacturing. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, for five minutes. mr. speaker, later today this body will vote on the house majority leadership plan to cut $40 billion from food stamps and forcing over four million low-income americans, citizens, veterans, seniors, and children to go hungry.
this bill is immoral. it is wrong to take food from the mouths of hungry people. it is especially cruel when at the same time the house majority continues to support crop insurance subsidies to wealthy farmers and agribusinesses. let us be clear about this so-called nutrition bill we are voting on today. the majority's leadership is making an explicit choice. they want us to force the poorest families in america to go hungry at a time of great need. while continuing to support and even expand giant government subsidies to the wealthy. this is reverse robin hood. this makes no economic sense. even as it's left anti-hunger programs in limbo, the farm bill passed in july by the majority expanded crop insurance subsidies. according to the nonpartisan
congressional budget office, these crob insurance subsidies will cost taxpayers $90 billion over the next decade. usda, united states department of agriculture, reports it spent $14 billion on crop insurance last year alone. keep in mind that means we will spend over twice as much on these subsidies than this proposed cut to food stamps will save us. some members of the majority like to argue that these deep cuts to food stamps are necessary and that we, the richest nation on earth, cannot afford to help feed the most vulnerable members of our society. this is untrue. a decision is being made to cut $40 billion in food aid to the poor while giving $90 billion in subsidies to the wealthy. that is not right. so who exactly are receiving these subsidies? that is a good question. right now u.s. taxpayers pay on average almost 2/3 of crop
insurance premiums for high-income farmers. 62% we pay for these crop insurance premiums. and according to the congressional budget office, the federal government paid $1.4 billion in crop insurance administrative costs to financial and insurance companies, including a bank in switzerland. last year over 10,000 farmers each received over $100,000 in crop insurance subsidies, and because the program is not means tested or capped, 26 farmers made over $1 million from the federal government. 26 wealthy farm owners who we are prevented from identifying, and they could even be members of congress. we can't get their names, they are statutorily protected, and as i stand here, we are going to fight every day to get the names of these 26 individuals. meanwhile, the bill that we
consider today would deny snap benefits to jobless adults without children whose incomes average only about 1/5 of the poverty line. and that, my friends, is $2,500 a year. let's say no to them for food on their tables. we know that are crop insurance subsidies have a higher error rate than the food stamp program, one of the most efficient programs the federal government undertakes. and sadly, we know there are members of the majority arguing strenuously for the food aid who are at the same time pocketting millions themselves in crop insurance subsidies. they should be ashamed. families on food stamps are struggling. we hear about seniors who have to choose between buying food or medicine, veterans trying to get back on their feet after serving their country, students in the classroom who can't even concentrate when others are eating because they are actually going hungry. these are the americans this
bill would see go hungry even as we subsidize handouts to wealthy farmers. this is immoral. if this is not wrong, nothing is wrong. but even if that doesn't sway you, consider the math. this bill would cut $40 billion from food aid while the majority in this body kept $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies. it would deny over four million low-income individuals a chance to eat even as we are giving 26 faceless individuals $1 million each. i cannot support a bill that hurts millions of low-income citizens, children, seniors, veterans. as the majority continues to subsidize wealthy agribusiness. historically, addressing hunger in america has been a bipartisan effort. democrats and republicans who come together to say we have a serious problem of hunger in america, let's work to eradicate. that was mcgovern, dole, kennedy and so many others. i urge my colleagues in both
parties to vote this heartless bill down. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, for five minutes. mr. othfus: thank you, speaker. when president obama sold his health care law to the american people, he made many promises. he promised, he guaranteed that if you like your doctor or your health care plan you could keep it. he promised that his law would not raise your health insurance costs. my constituents will tell you that the health care law has broken these promises, that these guarantees are no good. nearly every day i hear from folks, moms and dads, teachers, bus drivers, small business owners, health care providers who are being hurt by the health care law. a woman i met recently who had just started a new job making $8.50 an hour learned that her hours would be cut from 35 to 29. if you do the math, that's
about $50 a week, $200 a month, $2,500 a year. that may not sound like a lot of money to the elites here in washington, d.c., but for a working person in western pennsylvania, in a can make a big difference with gas, dwroseries or helping to pay the -- groceries or helping to pay the rent. a chemistry teacher recently called my office in beaver county talking about the health care law hurting her workers. heir hours were cut, a loss of $180 per pay cut. many use this money to provide health insurance for their families. these teachers aids and their families will lose their health care coverage. a mom from the north hills of pittsburgh recently got in touch with me to talk about the impact of the health care law and her family's small business. kathy and her husband recently learned that their health care plan will be discontinued december 31. kathy told me since obamacare was voted into law, we have watched our deductibles soar,
our premiums soar, and our blood pressure soar. enough already. kathy's sentiment is shared by many of the western pennsylvanians who called the office and who i've talked to at small business and constituent gatherings around the district. in the real world when you buy a product that comes with a guarantee, if the guarantee is not met, you get your money back and you look for a new product. with only 13 days until the law begins to take full effect, more and more flaws are increasingly evident and the president continues to delay arbitrarily major provisions of his health care law. we need to delay and dismantle the entire law so that a process of bipartisan health care reform can finally begin. it's time for a new beginning. it's time for a government that looks to the american people and our doctors and health care providers as not as subjects to be managed but as partners who can help solve problems. it's time for a new beginning that brings republicans and democrats in support of bipartisan solutions together. as president kennedy once said, let us not seek the republican
answer, let us not seek the democratic answer but the right answer. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the millions of mexican guest workers who came to the united states under the becerra program from 1942 to 1964. the becerra program is being highlighted by the smithsonian exhibit bittersweet harvest and being shown throughout the country. at a time when our country was at war and laborers were scarce, president franklin roosevelt and mexican president manuel can macho created a -- camacho created a guest worker ogram known as the becerra program. they arrived in stockton,
california, the heart of my district. these individuals embodied the american dream by searching for a better life for themselves and their families and worked hard to make it come true. the smithsonian exhibit uses personal stories from the becerros to highlight their experiences in this program and what they endured while adjusting to a new life in the united states. the san joaquin valley remains home to a strong and vibrant mexican population, and the region's heritage and history has been enriched due to its diversity. i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the contributions of the people who came to this country through the becerra program. mr. speaker, i also wish to honor the life of an education ioneer in my district, flora arca mata. he first pill filipino
teacher, -- the first filipino teacher, breaking barriers that they face immediately after world war ii, thereby helping numerous minority teachers join the education field. ms. mata retired from teaching in 1978 and passed away last wednesday at the age of 95. ms. mata was born in honolulu and moved to stockton in the 1920's. her family settled in the little manila section of stockton. she attended the university of california at los angeles where she met and later married her husband, vidal mata. upon graduating, they couldn't find teaching jobs, so they traveled to the philippines to teach. returning to stockton after the aftermath of world war ii, she responded to an ad. a year later she was hired to
teach kindergarteners. a steadfast public servant, she remained involved in the education system until her 80's, working as a substitute teacher and volunteering in her granddaughter's kindergarten's class. her commitment to the success of our students is be a an inspiration for our entire community. i urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the barriers ms. mata shattered and the road she paved for other individuals to enter the teaching profession. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for five minutes. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today opposed to the potential cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap, an important food program that lifts families, children and seniors out of poverty and provides an important safety
net for those in need. snap is our nation's most important anti-hunger program. it provides food assistance to approximately 46 million americans and it kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, including over two million children. this food program has cut the number of children living in extreme poverty in america in half. now, earlier this year, my colleagues on the other side approved a farm bill but left the food for america's families behind. they passed special subsidies for big ag, but for the first time in decades, excluded funding for food assistance for america's families in need. and now months after providing special subsidies for big ag, house republicans are bringing forward a bill to cut food
assistance by $40 billion. apparently, the first attempt at $20 billion was not deep enough. so they pass a farm bill that provides corporate subsidies, but they leave food for america's families behind. in my district and in the state of nevada, more than 71% of snap participants are families with children. almost 26% of all snap participants are in families with elderly and disabled members. and nearly 42% of all snap families are in working families. so house republicans support corporate welfare for big ag and big business but cut food assistance for the elderly, for disabled and, yes, even our veterans. we should not be cutting the safety net for our most vulnerable while maintaining
costly government subsidies for the well-off junk food oil and gas industries. snap benefits, mr. speaker, averages less than $1.50 per person per meal. that amount is set to drop to about $1.40 this fall when the 2009 recovery act's temporary benefit boost ends. now, the person who receives $1.50 per meal in nevada is not the problem with the budget. the problem is corporate welfare and the special interest giveaways that litter our tax code. i recently held a town hall -- telephone town hall the last time the republicans tried to gut food assistance for america's families and my constituents. i heard from families who are doing everything they can to provide for their family. i heard from seniors who are doing their best to keep their heads above water and moms who are doing their best to escape
poverty. if we cut snap even further, we are cutting a lifeline for these families. now, another important constituency that's affected by this cut is our veterans. since this data indicates that nationwide approximately 900,000 veterans receive snap assistance each month, an estimated 170,000 of those 900,000 veterans could be affected by the house republican proposal to cut $40 billion from snap. in my state, studies estimate that 72,184 veterans receive assistance from this important food assistance program. that means roughly one in three veterans in nevada, one in three receive assistance from snap. well my question to the house
republicans is, is this how we repay our veterans? is their sacrifice not enough? by trying to ram through $40 billion in cuts to programs that people reply on and then when that doesn't work doubling down and trying to make those cuts even worse? military families are on a pace this year to redeem more than $100 million in food aid on military bases. and the house republican reaction is to tell them that they need to live with less? i can't do that. i can't tell those families, sorry, but you've sacrificed enough. i urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing, do the right thing, avoid these draconian cuts to programs that combat hunger effectively. this isn't waste. this is a critical social safety net program that families and children and
veterans rely on. i urge this body to oppose the house republican plan. mr. faleomavaega: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. . mr. speaker, e: this morning i rise to call upon the consciousness and the conscience of not only america but my colleagues. i rise in the backdrop of a dreamer speech, dr. martin luther king, who spoke about the greatness of america. r. king had no karl -- quarrel
with this nation. he loved its values. he found it a place of promise, and i imagine if he was alive today he would have an answer to mr. putin, america is exceptional. the world looks to america. america's been the nation's breadbasket, it has served and fed the world. so, mr. speaker, the farmers i know want to feed the world. they relish by being called the farmers who are the breadbasket. they enjoy seeing their products arrive in places where people are hungry. and all the years that i have worked in the united states congress, we found a way to work with our family farmers and feed our children. that's why i rise today in opposition to a devastating food fight and america should take
notice. all of the food banks, all around the nation, should be bombarding this house today. all of the faith leaders should be immediately rising up and dialing in for this is a devastating food fight. $411 million in reduction in my .397 alone impacting 3 million if these cuts go forward today in food stamps or the supplemental nutrition program. 46.2 million people are living in poverty in america. 9.5 million of them are families. 16.1 million children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. is that the exceptional america? we he know that we are better than that. 34% of children in texas are in poverty. 50.1 million americans lived in food insecurity, and 16 million
children do not eat nutritiously. that is what will happen today in larger proportion. so this is the message, don't cut snap. stop the g.o.p. from cutting $40 meals, and billion -- or 24 meals per month per family. that's our message. how can we stand here, a country of dreamers and those who believe in acting for dr. king dreamed but he focused on action, he believed in helping the poor and believed in jobs. we come here to stand on the floor with a straight face and engage in battle of a food fight. i think it is atrocious and needs to stop. where is the goodness that gives americans all opportunities to rise? i heard a member on the floor discuss affordable care act.
get the facts. right now as we speak the affordable care act is providing premiums under $100 for those individuals that need to be insured. cutting poverty. that's why we need all of these factors, not cuts in snap, not the elimination of the afor theable care act in a continuing resolution that is not going to go anywhere. all of these pound on people who are in need. and i'm asking for relief. i'm asking for the promised land. the very promised land that dr. king also spoke of. the exceptionalism that is america. when we send young soldiers in foreign lands, they are exceptional. but yet some of their families who are paid soldiers are now on food stamps. is that what america's about? cutting the food stamp of active duty soldiers? we have to do better than that. so our message is going to be a strong one. we are against it. we are against all the pounding down on those who are trying to
climb the ladder of success. we want to end sequester that is going to cut 67.8 million teachers out of the primary and secondary schools. it is time now to say no, don't cut snap. no to the c.r. no to sequester, and yes to america. yes to the promised land. yes to the dream, yes to implement what is right. yes to allowing us to climb the ladder of success. that's the opportunity for americans. yes to jobs. yes to education. i believe that if we do not do that, mr. speaker, the ancestors and early founding fathers and even though we had our ups and downs, the visionaries, the visionaries, mr. speaker, are going to ask us why. god bless america. an exceptional nation with a big heart. vote no today. that's what america wants. something for all of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from california, mr. farr, for five minutes. thank you very much, mr. speaker. here we go again. last week we averted an attack on the country of syria. this week we again attack the country of the united states of america. we attack the working poor. what is it about the g.o.p.-led institution that can find nothing wrong with wall street criminals who have driven the american families into ruin? you can't find one bill on this floor to attack those who are wiped out by the recession, but
we can spend several days attacking the victims of the recession. i'm talking about people who need food stamps, snap programs. it's a debit card. they need help to buy food. and we help them. our farmers help them by growing the food. our grocery stores help them by selling the food. our charity organizations help them when they fall through the cracks. and guess what? the helpers get paid. that's the money that supports the food stamps. those are jobs. but that's about to go away. it's about to hurt those who need the help. the bill on the floor today is h.r. 3102.
it's the republican take away nutrition reform and take away work opportunity act. i added the take aways because that's what it does. sensible people ought to vote no on this bill. oh, you'll hear there are a lot of cheats out there, but guess what? the program has enforcement officers, they are in place, and when cheats are caught they are fined or they go to jail. in contrast to the misguided wall street investors and the banking foreclosure mess, where no one seems to get caught or go to jail, but we here in congress can pass a bad bill, can take -- that takes food away from working mothers. who are these people on food
stamps? who receives this aid? you know them. you know their parents. you know their sisters, brothers, there's moms and dads, previous speakers, veterans. people on active duty in service. there are people in need of extra money to buy food. yesterday i met one of those persons. here in the united states capitol, she's a working mom, she dropped out of high school at the age of 16, but eventually got a g.e.d. degree. she was urged with her g.e.d. degree now that she had a baby that she needed to go on, but she didn't have a job. she needed help and she got it through food stamps. she could care for her baby and she decided now that she could care for her baby she could go to community college to further her skill development. and later on to a california
college. she's 21 years old. she's a senior in college this year, and she's a mother of a 5-year-old son. i met her here in the united states capitol because she works here. her name is lisa russell, she won a leon panetta hill internship and is one of our best and brightest and needs food stamps to make it work. i met her because she thanked me for opposing this bill. as she told me, there are a million lisas out there. millions of people who need assistance. don't deny them a chance to get out of poverty. o have help when they need it. a.b. 302 is a dream killer, it's unamerican. just a few minutes ago we
pledged to this flag behind me. now it's time to live up to the responsibilities in that pledge. justice for all. not just for a few. it's a bad bill and needs defeating. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, i rise to talk about this heartless and ean-spirited attempt and the intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here to cut $40 billion from the snap program, the food stamp program that ensures that children,
seniors, and poor americans can put food on the table. earlier this year i participated in a food stamp challenge where e agreed to, for a period of one week, to limit our expenditure for food to $4.50 a day. that's about the average amount that a food stamp recipient receives for food. so trying to eat on $4.50 a day expander and an eye opener for me because it helped me to see exactly how fortunate i was to not be one of the many millions of people who rely on food stamps for their nutrition.
during that week that i was on that food stamp challenge, i went around to a number of homeless -- not homeless shelters, but bread lines, basically. i mean where people were lined up, white and black, hispanic and asian, lined up awaiting the food truck with its semitractor-trailer to get there loaded with food so that they could get some of the free food. so some of these food pantries is what i'm talking about, and people lined up several hours before the pantry actually some food. to get and so i can assure you that there are many people out there,
and i spoke with many of them, some of them i spoke with one woman who worked three jobs, three part-time jobs, cobbling part-time jobs that pay minimum wage together and trying to take care of a family off of that and still being eligible for food stamps and needing to have those food stamps. so people have lost their jobs, people have been offered and ve accepted new jobs after this economic meltdown caused by wall street, people lost jobs, they have accepted part-time jobs cobbling a few part-time jobs together to try to make ends meet for the entire family and they need those food stamps, but what my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle plan on perg is cutting $40 billion year, for this next year, 2014, they want to cut $40 billion out of the budget. the budget is a statement of our values. if you can give -- if you can $15 farmers crop subsidies billion, $20 billion per year and then hide by congressional legislation, hide the identity of the recipients of that -- of those crop subsidy payments gives u, the taxpayer,
to the insurance companies on behalf of the farmers. and then what you do, you give the insurance companies, you offset their administrative and operating costs in operating that program, we pay them billions of dollars a year. $100 as it ends up over billion in a 10-year period, crop insurance for people who don't need it. and we're going to cut food stamps today $40 billion, that's not the values that america stands for. i thank you and i'll be voting against that legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes.
ms. speier: mr. speaker, thank you. you know, in my district, california 14, we have about 4,000 families who are on food stamps, but some of my colleagues have thousands and thousands more. yet, they somehow feel like crusaders, like heroes when they vote to cut food stamps. some of these same members travel to foreign countries under the guise of official business. they dine at lavish restaurants, eating steak, .odka and even caviar they receive money to do this. that's right, they don't pay out of pocket for these meals. let me give you a few examples. $127.41 a as given day for food on his trip to argentina. he probably had a fare amount
of steak. another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to russia. he probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. that particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. one of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. another 20 members made a trip to dublin, ireland. they got $166 a day for food. these members didn't pay a dime. a y received almost $200 for single meal only for themselves. yet, for them the idea of helping fellow americans spend less than $5 a day makes their
skin crawl. the faces of families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents. st week, a man named ramon shake wrote on his linkdin page. he's the founder and c.e.o. of panera bread. he wrote, despite wanting to fight hunger and poverty in america, he really didn't know what it was like to be truly hungry. and so this ron is taking the snap challenge. the millionaire food mow gull is living on $-- mogul is living on $4.50 a day. i've taken the snap challenge, and i can tell you it is a horrible experience. you think about food constantly. you are always hungry. but those on food stamps live
one .50 every day, not for week. for long into their future. that is so crushing. historically, food stamps have been part of the farm bill. it's that same bill that 26 corporate farmers who remain nameless get $1 million each in subsidies meant for real farmers. the taxpayers are giving $7 billion per year to large agribusiness, yet, republicans feel snap programs cost us too much money. they want to cut it. mr. speaker, i can stand here and say that my point is about saving food stamps from cuts. that's true. but my larger point is about us as a country, as a society, as neighbors. i'm a member of the least productive congress in the history of this country. i'm ashamed of that. to be honest, if the federal
government shut down for a couple of weeks, as we keep hearing, would americans even notice? when a government of the people or for the people becomes a government in spite of the people, then who are we really serving? if we refuse to take care of those who are the most vulnerable at a tiny fraction say, our ts that, defense budget, don't we cease to be true public servants? ron shake is putting himself in the wornout shoes of 48 million fellow americans. i am ready to do the same again. i wonder how many of my republican colleagues would want to cut food stamps if they had taken the snap challenge. after all, that means no more steak, no more caviar or vodka. based on these members' eating habits, i wonder if they could survive. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.
got under way just under five minutes ago. >> keep the government working. open and working for the american people. one will be the debt limit we'll be voting on, something to prepare for us to vote on for next week. shutting down the government is one bad thing. you shut it down, you open it up again. not lifting the debt limit is unleashing a torrent, a river of no return. it is beyond cataclysmic. as if the government shutdown wasn't bad enough for the american people, the republicans actually -- i don't like to use the word republicans because this is a name that has been hijacked by the -- a segment of the republican party, tea party element, republicans are determined to hold the full faith and credit of the united states of america hostage to their radical agenda.
refusing to raise the debt limit poses a cataclysmic danger to the stability of our markets and the economic security of our middle class. don't take that from me. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke said, a government shutdown and perhaps even more so a failure to raise the debt limit has very serious consequences for the financial markets and for the economy. what does that mean to you? what does that mean to the average everyday wonderful american? raising -- if we were to not time e debt limit, last just a conversation about it lowered our credit rating, but if we were not to raise the debt limit, it would have this impact on america's families. it would raise interest rates on
your credit card, on your mortgage, on your car payment, on your student loan, and if you own a small business, on your business loan. two, jeopardizing the market as the chairman has mentioned would impact your 401-k account. your pension, and your retirement account. the impact on the markets would have a devastating effect on your individual 401-k. in addition to raising interest costs per families and harming the 401-k's, even the talk as i say in 2011 led to a downgrade which dramatically slowed economic growth, impasse at the markets, and caused consumer confidence to plummet. democrats support a clean increasing the debt limit to ensure america can pay its bills and prevent another debilitating
crisis in our country. the votes are there. we will provide a huge number of votes for a clean lifting of the debt limit. it only takes some republicans to do that. this is playing with fire. legislativearsonnists are at work when they start using the debt limit for their own agenda. our country cannot afford another republican manufactured crisis, which this is. it's time for republicans and democrats to join together to put people to work, grow the economy, to strengthen the middle class. as we leave here i'll go to the floor and address what we are doing today and that is reduce the funding for snap. last week i was in church in houston and the priest cautioned people there in his sermon, he said, to be careful about praying in church on sunday and
not preying on other people during the week. and this is exactly what this legislation does. our children, our seniors, our returning vets, so many people affected by this cut in the snap program. we have a republican majority ready, ready to do just what i said. and in the debate today we'll share the real faces of hunger in america, chief among them, again, our children and our seniors, our veterans, and their families. one in five kids struggles with hunger. nearly half of snap recipients are children. nearly four million americans over the age of 60 rely on nutrition assistance. nearly three million veterans and their families don't get enough to eat each month. this bill would jeopardize food aid for many of our vets and
their families. it's time for republicans to abandon this dangerous bill and work to enact a five-year comprehensive farm bill. it's necessary for our farmers. it's necessary for our consumers. for food security. and for our farmers and ranchers and strengthens communities. five-year farm bill. shouldn't be this hard and then to have as a path to the conference taking food out of the mouths of babies. it's remarkable. it is a manifestation of the budget policies that i talked about earlier. any questions? >> yesterday at the event the families, the gun violence legislation, would you like to see the senate controlled by democrats go again on gun violence legislation before the end of the year, whether or not they are certain of having
votes? >> as you know full well the reason the bill did not pass in the senate is because it required 60 votes. while it had a majority of the senate voting for it, it did not have the 60-vote margin. what i would like to see is for us to pass legislation, not to pass legislation. again as i said yesterday, we had no right to have a moment of silence unless we are going to spend our time trying to reach a legislation that will reduce gun violence. it's an agenda of things that we -- destroys confidence in our economy by creating jobs and stop this foolishness of this talk of shutting down the government and not lifting the debt ceiling. it's about who we are as a people. by and large with respect for our native american friends, a nation of immigrants. let's pass comprehensive immigration reform. we have taken an oath to protect and defend, restore confidence in the safety of our
neighborhoods, our schools, our communities, by passing the background check legislation. i'd like the senate to take another shot so that we can win on it. i don't know what changes they can make, but certainly we believe that it's the senate bill, for lack of 60 votes, would come up in the house that it would pass. that it would pass in the house of representatives. so i think that the support is there. 90% of the american people support background checks. how come that's not reflected in some way for this great bill to pass the senate and the house? we are not giving up on this. we are not giving -- going away on it. and as you saw yesterday we owe it to those families. you know, for such a long time we have had this problem of violence in inner cities and the
rest. now we see aurora, movie theater, and we see a kindergarten in connecticut and the rest. everyone, your children, my -- everyone is at risk. this is really as protected facility as the navy yard, 12 people being killed by a lone gunman. we really have to act upon it. many other factors are involved, but all of them come to a place where background checks would be the answer. >> the president of iran recently said in an interview and bbc news that perhaps they would not use any -- they would not try to develop any nuclear weapons that they would be open to more freedom of the internet and and the idea when he was asked about the holocaust, the denial of mr. ahmadinejad, he said well, politician not a
historian. he struck a moderate tone. do you have any faith in the president of iran he could be a more able-bodied and willing partner to work with than ahmadinejad? what are your thoughts about his most recent comments? >> i hope that it's not just a public relations campaign but is an accurate reflection of what their views are. we always want to see a diplomatic path. i do think that, again, to salute the president for his courage to say we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons, and we will act upon that. i think the conversations with the russians about how to deal with chemical weapons in syria that serve us well as far as iran is concerned in terms of something tom lantos advocated for years which was to have the spent fuel, etc., under
international -- not only inspection but custody. my daughter as you may know received one of those emails from the -- when the bragging, usually i'm bragging about my grandchildren, responded to a -- the foreign minister, not the president, the foreign minister put out a rosh hashanah message, whatever the term is, greetings for rosh hashanah, and she said, interesting, sir, but how about stopping the denial of the holocaust? to which he responded to her saying, that's not iran. that's one person and he's not here anymore. or words to that effect. that's encouraging. more encouraging of course words coming from the president of the contry. we are all looking forward to his speech to the united nations to perhaps a meeting with the president.
i don't know if that's a eality, but again, any engagement, any diplomatic fforts are welcomed. >> they were trying to get as high numbers as they possibly could. if they strip out health care and comes back, can your side -- >> we are not demanding 1058 or 1057, whatever the score is. but we do think that there's a compromise that can be reached. i can't tell you what we will take until we see what the bill
is. the democrats can supply votes if democrats have a say in what the legislation is. so again we'll be interested to see if this senate is successful n stripping out the -- i won't characterize it, senator reid already has very well. restoring putting your health decisions in the hands of the insurance companies, but if they strip that out, we'll see what they do after that and what can pass the senate, but if they want democratic votes in the house, our whip has been very, very forceful and i think he speaks for our caucus almost across the board when he says we just cannot have that number, which is really $20 billion less, as you know, by january, it's $20 billion less,
perpetuating sequester, and something that we put our i am pra mature -- i am pri mature on. -- impri mature on. that didn't seem to work so far from the house side. but obviously we always stand ready to try to work together to reach a solution to keep government open and to raise the debt limit, because of what it means to households across america. we'll see it when it comes back. but right now the mood is not favorable to a 986 number. that's it. >> let me ask another one.
>> has boehner lost control of his conference? could you explain the frustration of the difficulty of making a deal, any deal with the peaker with the rebellious opponents he's got. the perception -- >> i haven't said he's lost control of his caucus. maybe he's in full control of his caucus. i don't know. he's a reflection of his caucus or reflection of him. but let's just say i wish the speaker well. he's speaker of the house. we have a responsibility. for example, the debt that has been incurred that we have to raise the limit to was incurred by the congress of the united states. so we have a responsibility to lift the debt ceiling. that's not for new spending. that's for spending that has already occurred. so i think that it's not just up
to the speaker but the outside has to weigh in and say we understand the consequences of not lifting the debt ceiling even if you don't. let us explain that to you. car payment, credit car payment, student loans, mortgage payments, small business loans across the board, what that means my 401-k -- anybody out there with a 401-k, it's very much in danger. again this has to be a national discussion because i'm not sure people know again the pyrotechnics going on by the tea party in the republican caucus and what that means to them. i wish the speaker well. i respect the speaker. i wish him well. i hope it doesn't hurt him too much that i said i respected him. thank you all. see you later. bye-bye.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] >> just to let you know we expect the speaker of the house, john boehner, to have his own briefing shortly at about 11:30 eastern. we'll have that live for you as well here on c-span. the house gavels back in at noon and a busy legislative agenda this afternoon. they'll take up the measure that cuts $40 billion from the federal food stamp program with a supplemental nutrition assistance program over 10 years. also today they'll begin the debate on the three-month spending bill to continue the federal government past september 30. a continuing resolution. the republican-led house has attached language to that resolution eliminating any funding for the health care law. the office of management and budget at the white house today issued a statement saying the president would veto that bill, quote, because it advances a narrow ideological agenda that threatens our economy and the interest of the middle class, end quote. we'll have that debate beginning
at noon live coverage of the house here on c-span. speaking of the u.s. house, news today that a texas appeals court has overturned the money laundering conviction of former house majority leader, tom delay. the associated press says in a 2-1 ruling today that tom delay had been acquitted. he was sentenced to three years in prison but his sentence was on hold while his case made its way through the appellate process. he was found guilty in november, 2010, of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for helping illegally funnel money to texas candidates. that conviction overturned today in austin. the house coming in at noon. we hope to have john boehner in about five or 10 minutes or so. live here on c-span. in the meantime discussion from this morning's "washington journal" on the upcoming debate n the c.r. and debt ceiling. host: representative scott
garrett, were you at the closed door republican conference yesterday? guest: it's the regular weekly g.o.p. meeting that we have downstairs. host: can you give us a sense how that went and what some of the issues discussed and is there division within the g.o.p.? guest: sure. i can do all those things. i would say it started out as a regular meeting. we have good attendance at these things now. in the past as you can imagine when the issues go by the side not everybody shows up for them. this time as we get into the crunch time all the members are there. the conversation was just on the topics you have been talking about previously. is there division? there's always a difference of opinion. we have open mike after the leadership makes their presentations. you run down the list with the speaker and majority leader and the whip. they run through it. and kathy runs it. then you go to the open mike. there's one or two people say how about this or that.
i would say this, there's probably more consensus at yesterday's meeting than there was a week ago or couple weeks ago. so going into -- today's thursday. going into the end of this week now with the thought farm bill, or snap bill tend of the week, i think there's more consensus there. and next week with what's going on there, i think there's more consensus as well. host: how do you see -- first of all do you support the current g.o.p. strategy that speaker boehner announced yesterday? guest: sure. his plan now is to do what? come up with a one continuing resolution c.r. that would have two or three parts to it. one of the critical parts to it, i think, is the piece that -- the legislation we did in the past, said we should make sure no matter what happens going forward, we don't want the government to shut down. there's total 100% consensus on that.
we want to make sure the administration and white house has the power and authority to ensure that the government doesn't get shut down with regard to it, specifically to the debt limit that we will continue to pay our debts. so language in the c.r. will contain that and that's one area that i think there's 100% support for. host: what about the defunding of health care and then the debt limit, debt limit which has conditions attached to it? guest: sure. on the defunding of health care, defunding of the affordable health care, that is also an area of pretty good consensus. it's not 100%, but i think most republicans are on the side where most americans are. by that i mean looking at the polling numbers. majority of americans have real questions about the affordable health care act, a.k.a. obamacare, going into effect on october 1. even the administration is saying that parts of it are not ready to -- ready for prime time
come october 1. are playing off of what the party is saying and administration is saying. if you're not ready let's kick it down. host: are you supportive of the speaker's strategy? guest: sure. i think this new piece of legislation that will be coming out with -- we'll be coming out with is probably the best we can do in a difficult time right now. host: what about a government shutdown, especially if the senate doesn't pass. you pass, they bring it bark, and you don't accept what they have done. the numbers are up on the screen if you'd like to participate in our conversation with representative garrett, go ahead and dial in now or make a twitter comment as well. guest: well -- host: what are the chances of it passing, if it passes the house does it come back from the senate in the same form, government shutdown happens? guest: in any negotiation, you need to have somebody on the other side of the table to be
negotiating with. for a long period of time we have not had somebody over there. for a long period of time the n esident has done -- draw lines in the sand i won't do this or that. it's his way or no way. that's not a goods method in order to reach compromise on, but that's where the president has been on fiscal matters. we are hoping that he will this time come to the table. we hope that the senate this time will come to the table. and when the legislation goes over there a broader agreement can be reached. host: what do you think of this he'dline, boehner boughs to conservative demands on obamacare funding. that's the hill newspaper this morning. >> -- guest: if i was writing that maybe i could rephrase that to say boehner boughs to american public -- bows to the american public. if you look at the majority of americans, i can't give you poll
numbers off the top of my head, maybe you have it there, the american public does not want the affordable health care act, obamacare, to go into effect right now. we are just responding to that. we are also responsive to the fact that the american public wants something to be done with regard to health care. we want to fix the situation. so there are a number of pieces in the republican legislation that would fix health care in this country and try to make it more affordable for the average american. host: representative garrett, if health care wasn't an issue right now, would there be any issue with the budget -- what would be the issues, if any, with the budget, continuing resolution, etc.? guest: if the affordable health care act, obamacare, was magically stopped, you're saying, what would be item two on the list? it would be the overall issue of the fiscal sustainability of this country is the overall the fact that we are $17 trillion in
debt. so overall fact that we are on an unsustainable spending course in this country. again where the american public poll numbers show. that the public wants us to live within our means. don't spend more than we take in. in essence -- the american public often says when i go back home, my constituents, you guys in washington should have to live by the same laws and rules that we do. and i totally agree. one of the most fundamental rules of economics is that you can't continuously spend more than you take in. they want us to live by that rule as well. and we have not been for a long time. both indrepublican presidents and democrat presidents -- both under republican presidents and democrat presidents. we have to fix the problem. that's the number one issue. host: got scare rhett, member of the budget committee and financial services committee. in fact he's chair of the subcommittee on capital markets on the financial services committee. has been in congress since 2003,
correct? guest: yes. host: want to get your view on likely cle, yellin is choice for fed. what do you think? guest: the head line question, most likely choice, we don't know that because the president, it would appear, is doing really what a president should be doing, that is setting up trial balloons to see what the response is. the headline might have red a few weeks ago, yellen slightly candidate for fed chairman. that trial balloon was floated. then there was such opposition to t. the opposition as you have covered did not come from the republican side of the aisle -- >> we'll break away here and take you live back to the capitol to hear from speaker john boehner. >> tomorrow we'll pass a plan to protect the american people from
the president's health care law while keeping the rest of government up and running. when it comes to the health care law the debate in the house has been settled. i think our position is very well. the law is a train wreck. and it's going to raise costs. it's destroying american jobs. and it must go. we'll deliver a big victory in the house tomorrow and it will move over to the senate where it belongs. i expect my senate colleagues to be up for the battle. while that fight plays out, we engage in another set of challenges, the debt limit. more importantly the debt itself. let me be very clear, republicans have no interest in defaulting on our debt. none. we just want to find a way to pay it off. that's why the house had a plan that would reduce the deficit and produce pro-growth economic refor, including a delay of the president's health care law. there's a commonsense principle
here. if you're going to raise the debt ceiling, you should work to reduce the deficit and grow the economy at the same time. the president's remarks notwithstanding. the white house may not get it, but frankly the american people get it. every major deficit reduction plan over the last 30 years has been tied to the debt limit. 1985, president reagan signed the gramm-rudman honks reduction bill which included an increase in the debt limit. president bush reached a budget deal with democrats here in the congress in 1990, it included an increase in the debt limit. president clinton reached two similar agreements, both tied to the debt limit. and i would remind president obama himself that in the summer of 2011 there was a major deficit reduction bill enacted with an increase in the debt limit. this time should be no different.
in fact i think it's more important than ever. a report this week from the congressional budget office makes it clear that our debt is set to grow rapidly in the coming years if we take no action. that's why it's so troubling that the president's decided to just sit out this debate. he says he won't engage. you know, most presidents refer to their bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit as achievements. the president sees this as, quote-unquote, extortion. so while the president is happy to negotiate with putin, he won't engage with a congress on a plan that deals with the deficits that threaten our economy. let me just be clear here, a debt limit increase without any reforms to lower our deficit just isn't going to cut it. not when under this president the united states has wracked up $6 trillion worth of additional debt. as you can see it right here.
when the president took office. look what's happened over these years. look what's happened out into the future. if we don't do something about our spending problem. so a bill that does nothing to deal with the deficit is really telling the world that we are not willing to deal with our spending problem. the president needs to recognize we have a shared responsibility to govern. he can try to stay on the sidelines, but here in the house e are going to lead. >> about what might happen when the bill goes next door. you say you expect the senate colleagues will be up for the battle. are you convinced now that they are up for the battle next door? >> the battle here has been won. the fight over there is just
beginning. >> the fight over here, what's your reaction? >> i expect my senate colleagues to do everything they can to defund this law just like the house is going to do. >> if they don't do that, if they send it back to you -- >> i'm not going to get into ifs, ands, and buts. >> if the numbers allow you to go with a vote with that stripped out or will you need the cooperation of leader pelosi? >> i'm not going to speculate on what the senate will or will not do. >> do you expect to have debt limit vote next week? what are the must haves? >> we are going to have a conversation with our colleagues tomorrow morning how we proceed on the debt limit. after that conversation we'll probably have more to say. >> the chamber of commerce is saying house republicans don't
do this. senate republicans are saying almost universally, don't do this. this is a losing strategy for republicans. is there any chance to change your mind. >> to do what? >> to tie funding the government to defunding obamacare? >> listen, obamacare is driving up the cost of health care. it is a train wreck. it has to go. we have done everything humanly possible over the last 2 1/2 years to make our point and we are going to continue to make our point. >> senate republicans say they agree with that. they just don't think this is the vehicle. they think republicans will get blamed. >> guess what? we are having the fight over here. we are going to win the fight over here. it's time for them to take up the mantle and get the job done. >> speaker boehner in recent interview in nbc news, the president of iran said that they would not use nuclear -- weapons ever. he struck a more moderate tone as well as said he would -- there was a question of the holocaust denial, saying he's a
politician not historian. do you have comments about the recent words of the president of iran? >> actions speak louder than words. and i think it's time for the iranians to take actions to show the world that they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons. >> on the debt limit, how do you expect these negotiations you are calling for to proceed? you told your colleagues earlier in the year you didn't want to go back to the shuttling over to the white house -- >> i'm not doing that. >> how do you want to proceed? >> the house will pass a bill. it will be up to the senate to pass a bill. and i would guess the president would engage with the majority leader over there. if he so desires. >> mr. speaker, you said yesterday that the job of a leader is to listen. who did you list -- were you listening to? and who do you think is running the republican conference right now? >> diverse topics, frankly.
so the democrats have a very diverse caucus. the republicans by their very nature are a bit more independent than our colleagues across the aisle. i have seen that from the day i got here. and so whenever we are trying to put together a plan, we've got 233 members, all of whom have their own plan. tough to get them on the same track. we got there. david, welcome. >> get around to doing a conference on the farm bill? >> as soon as we can. >> can you be more specific? >> i love those editorial comments that come along with the questions. after we pass the nutrition bill today, we'll send it over to the senate. as i understand it, the senate probably will have to reappoint conferees when that -- when they ask for a conference, we'll appoint our conferees as well.
the sooner the better. >> are you willing to violate the house -- >> we expect to have the votes tomorrow to pass the c.r. and we'll take it from there. i'm not going to speculate on what the senate's going to do, not do, and where the votes are. it's way too early for that. we'll have plenty of time next weekend to discuss that. >> house speaker john boehner speaking to reporters, setting the scene for some of the debate ahead. the house gavels in at noon eastern. they'll take up this afternoon the rule for a measure that cuts $40 billion from the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the food stamp program, over 10 years. also they'll begin debate on the rule for the c.r., continuing resolution, a three-month
spending bill continuing federal spending past september 30. that also attaches language, has language attached that eliminates any funding for the 2010 health care law. also this afternoon, a bill that would increase the amount of timber harvested on federal lands. all of that coming up at noon. live coverage here on c-span. and until then, some discussion from this morning's "washington journal" on the food stamp debate ahead. >> congressman jim mcgovern, democrat of massachusetts. you sit on the rules committee. second ranking democrat on that committee. kind of a big meeting yesterday. what happened? guest: we met on a whole bunch of things, including this nutrition bill which i have a great deal of concern about and on the continuing resolution. there's a lot happening here in washington. unfortunately not a lot is good. i worry very much that some of the cutbacks that republican leadership has proposed are
going to hurt the most vulnerable. i personally believe if government stands for anything, we need to stand for those who are struggling, who are vulnerable, who need our help. donald trump doesn't need government. but some poor person who lost their job and was trying to put food on the table for their family does. the rules committee met. they had a long meeting. and today we will debate the rule and we will debate majority leader cantor's new nutrition bill, which i think will do a lot of harm to a lot of people in this country. tomorrow if things go as expected we'll debate the continuing resolution. host: today in congress when they come in at 10:00 a.m. there will be a debate on the rule for the continuing resolution bill, which is the funding of the government plus the defunding of health care. guest: we'll debate the rules today. right. host: and then you'll debate the rule on the snap bill.
guest: right. host: on the nutrition bill. any special rules involved with today's debate? guest: closed rules. we have a republican majority in the house that promised transparency and openness and free flowing debate, and all members are important we were told by speaker boehner when he became speaker. yet we are bringing bills to the floor under a very closed process. and on the bill that impacts snap, which was formerly called food stamps, it's griegeous we are bringing it up under a closed rule because this is a bill that has no hearings. there hasn't been one single hearing on snap in the agriculture committee all congress, but this bill had no hearings. there was no markup. where members of the committee could offer amendments. there wasn't -- it was not even considered by the agriculture committee. it was written in eric cantor's
living room. next thing you know it's before the rules committee. and we are going to debate it. and it's a lousy way to legislate. host: will it pass the house? guest: i hope not. look, one of the things that troubles me about this bill is that according to c.b.o., 3.8 million people could lose their food benefits. including unemployed workers, children, senior citizens, veterans. we have $900,000 veterans on food stamps in this country. under this proposal 170,000 would lose their benefits. i'm angry by the callousness of this bill. i'm also saddened by the fact that combating hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. i went to college at american university in the late 1970's here, and i interned in george mcgovern's office, no relation.
he turned out to be one of my closest friends in the entire world. i was impressed when i started working with him at how bipartisan this issue was. 1968 there was a documentary about hunger in america, charles can rault narrated it -- karault narrated it. the very next day george mcgovern reached out to bob dole and they formed the select committee on hunger and nutrition. and that -- the work those two men and others did to strengthen our anti-hunger safety net almost eliminated hunger in the 1970's. this wasn't a liberal or conservative issue. wasn't a republican or democratic issue. it was the right thing to do. and it is sad for me to see some in the republican leadership blow all that up. i know a lot of rank and file republicans, because i have talked to them, are very troubled by this. they don't feel comfortable with
a $40 billion cut in the snap program. and so we'll find out today whether they'll vote their conscience or too afraid of their leadership and vote with the leadership. this is -- it's a big deal. if it succeedses, it will hurt a lot of people and make00er worse in america not better. host: $75 billion according to the usda was spent on the snap program last year. 46.6 million people get food stamps or benefit. that's a sixth of the u.s. guest: and the reason why is because the economy has been so bad. and the way snap works is when the economy is bad, the amount we spend on the program increases. as the economy gets better, it decreases. the certainty on budget and policy priorities, which is a novepb partisan think tank, they comprised databased on c.b.o.
materials. what you see is -- it shows you there, they are predicting, the economic forecast is that the economy is slowly but surely getting better. as you look beyond where we are now, the a spending on snap decreases. the way you deal with rising snap costs is you get your economy back on track. you put more people back to work. that's not some radical idea. it's just common sense. but in the meantime i'd like to think that there's bipartisan consensus that people who need food, people who need to put food on the table for their families, ought to be able to do so. i don't think that should be considered somehow controversial . and to suggest as some in the republican leadership have somehow being on snap is a sweet deal, everybody's dream is to be
able to get on snap because it's this incredibly generous benefit, i mean the average snap benefit is about $1.50 per meal per day. that's not overly generous benefit. but for a lot of families, especially those who are struggling, this is all they have to put food on the table. the majority of people in this program are children. senior citizens. and those who are able to work, most do. for those who aren't working, it's hard to find a job in this economy. it still is. and if the economy gets better, hopefully republicans will shut down the -- won't shut down the government, and defund all the infrastructure programs and -- won't shut down the government and defund the infrastructure programs, hopefully we'll see this economy continue to get bert. host: what do you think the likelihood of a shutdown is? guest: i don't know.
part of me thinks it's not likely because it is a stupid idea. then there's another part of me that listens to people like marco rubio and senator lee and senator cruz talk about shutting the government down. i don't know what they are going to do. it's a stupid idea. we have a divided government. we need to come together. sometimes that involves compromise. but we ought to get the people's work done. this shouldn't be this hard. and similarly, we shouldn't be balancing the budget on the backs of poor people. we shouldn't be trying to balance the budget by taking food out of the mouths of hungry people in this contry. -- country. we ought to have a discussion in washington right now, and it should be a bipartisan discussion, how you end hunger in america. not how you make it worse but how do you end it? the white house should be involved in this conversation.
bring everybody together who has a role in this. it's not just the government. there are other players in the private sector, in the food banks, food pantries, our schools, hospitals, everybody has a role to play. let's make our goal to end hunger in this country. because there are 50 million people in america who are hungry. close to 17 million of them are kids. we are the richest, most powerful country in the world. this should not be the case. host: first all up for representative jim mcgovern, democrat of massachusetts. comes from jim in indiana. on our democrat line. jim, you're on the "washington journal." maderryville. host: where is that? caller: gary and lafayette. do you an arrow it would be in the middle. i was calling earlier but glad i got through, over the food stamp
thing is just -- it's unheard of in my opinion because i have a lot of -- we are in rural indiana. there are a lot of people out here who depend on that. they work their whole life. i have some people i know on disability. they get very, very little aid. then you hear about republicans say, they are trying to think about maybe drug testing and all this because you're getting a little aid from the government. of course they don't want to do that to any of the big farmers out here, of course. they are getting aid but it's not considered welfare. my point is that if we start taking everything away from our domestic policies that we are going to end up with absolutely nothing. the sequester which they were talking about errier, that's -- sequester, it's doing great. it's doing this. i have seen a grown man on tv
cry because his child couldn't go to head start. that's really touching. and then i'm thinking we can't take foreign aid and sequester it instead of domestic aid? wouldn't that be a better avenue? host: a lot on the table. congressman. guest: i agree with you on the see quers. i think it represents an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity. it's unconscionable. and the across-the-board indiscriminate cuts make no sefpblets i don't care what your political philosophy is. i think most people will agree there are things that are wasteful let's cut them. if there are things that are important or working, you shouldn't cut them. the sequester is cugget the national institutes of health, for example. the organization that is designed to try to find cures to diseases. to keep us well, keep us out of hospitals. it creates jofpblets it also lowers health care costs. prevents human suffering.
we are cutting that. the national science foundation. these are things that we invest in to keep us competitive economically. so the sequester, it needs to be changed. i'm all for deficit reduction. but deficit reduction in and of itself is not an economic policy. and we need to understand that to get this economy back on the right track, create more jobs, which by the way will help us reduce our deficit and debt, you need to invest. you can't neglect infrastructure or medical research. just one other thing on the food stamp stuff, i think a lot of people don't realize this, percentagewise there are more people in rural areas who rely on the snap program than in urban areas. again it is a very modest, i think -- that's even a generous word to label what the benefit is, that has evolved here. this is giving people food. you can't use your snap benefit
to buy a flat screen tv. you could only buy food. you also mentioned some of the sweetheart deals. not that the small or medium-sized farmers are get, they are not getting enough. we need to support them. some these big agribusinesses, they are getting sweetheart deals. we are not cutting there. we are not cutting crop insurance, which by the way we are learning more and more every day about the waste and abuse there. instead the majority leader cantor has decided to go after poor people and cut their food stamps. i think that's a rotten thing to do. host: jim mcgovern is the second ranking democrat on the agricultural committee. guest: on rules. i'm on the agriculture committee. host: that's what it says here and i got it wrong. what is a massachusetts democrat doing on the agriculture committee?
guest: we have agriculture in massachusetts, too. i wanted to be on the committee because that's where programs like snap are dealt with. and i think it's important that we understand that we need a 50-farm state policy. it's not just a couple states in the midwest. we have agriculture all over the country. we have to promote that. we ought to support our small, medium-sized farmers. we also have a moral obligation to make sure that there is a safety net so that people don't go hungry in this country. and what i hear people say, oh, we can't afford to do that. i remind them that there's a cost to hunger. kids who go to school who are hungry do not learn. there are avoidable medical costs that are associated with hunger. people showing up at hospitals because their immune system has been compromised. senior citizens taking their
medication on an empty stomach when we are told to take it with food because they can't afford both. lost productivity in the workplace. we are spending billions and billions and billions already to deal with hunger. and again i believe, and i hope that i can persuade my colleagues in congress, we ought not to make it worse by passing this cut in food stamps, $40 billion. they couldn't pass a $20 billion cut. then they double down on the cruelty and now we have a $40 billion cut. but i hope we can persuade them not to make it worse. i also hope can i persuade them and the white house to begin a conversation so we can develop a plan to end hunger in this country. you can't end it just by supporting food stamps. that's one anti-hunger tool in the toolbox. we need a comprehensive plan. as we come up with that comprehensive plan, we ought not
to make hunger worse by voting for this terrible bill that will be on the floor today. host: this bill, the snap bill, would authorize the nutrition programs for three years. this is according to "c.q." it eliminates the ability of states to waive work requirements for certain ability bodied snap recipients when unemployment is high and calls for states to impose new work requirementses on parents of young children. it also restricts so-called categorical eligibility under which individuals become eligible for food stamps based on their receipt of other low-income aid. guest: so basically -- >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern and video library at c-span.org. we are breaking away here for the u.s. house. they are gaveling in fecks for legislative work which will include the rule for a bill that cuts $40 billion from the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the federal food stamp program over 10 years.
also today work on the rule for the continuing resolution, the three-month spending bill continuing federal spending past september 30. the end of the fiscal year 2013. attached to that bill is language that defunds the -- or eliminates funding for the health care bill. live coverage here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, bishop jerry macklin, glad tydings church, hayward, california. the chaplain: shall we pray? god of our weary years, god of our silent tears, thou who has led us thus far along the way, for this land of freedom and the promise of america, we are thankful. in the face of daunting tasks, monumental and complex changes,
grant this, the 113th congress, your sovereign wisdom. low this august body, like eagles, to soar bond partisan disagreements, grant the members of the house of representatives strength that they may run for those whose legs are week and give them courage they may walk for those who will become weary through years of injustice. give them compassion that they may speak for those whose voices had been silenced and, god, grant them vision for those whose dreams are diminished. now, god, empower america with the unity that defies the chaos of the moment. lead us into the light. keep us forever. in the path we pray, in the ame of jesus christ, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.
pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: 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. the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. the speaker: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. ms. chu: please place your hand over your heart. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from california, s. swalwell, is recognized for
one -- mr. swalwell, is recognized for one minute. mr. swalwell: there is no better person i know than bishop jerry macklin to deliver this afternoon's opening prayer. his words are inspiring and the call for national unity in these trying teams are appropriate. he knows a thing or two about trying times. he found his church in 1978. with a big heart of compassion and deep devotion to the lord, he turned a neighborhood overrun by drugs and crime into a community of faith. today, glad tiedings church has over 1,5 -- tidings church has over 1,500 members. the church is not just a place to worship but a center point of care for the community, providing food, affordable housing and health care to the most in need among us. just two weeks ago, bishop macklin opened his church's door to host an affordable care act forum to help educate my
constituents. as the regional health and human services was explaining to the attendees where they could sign up, i saw, firsthand bishop macklin's commitment to the community. by the time the regional director had finished addressing the attendees, bishop macklin had texted and emailed to make sure they help. thank you for watching over this house and for your work to watch over our community. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. five years, that's how long the keystone x.l. pipeline and the 40,000 jobs it's expected to create have been waiting for president obama's approval. there is no good reason for this delay.
americans need these jobs. democrats, republicans and organized labor groups have coalesced in support of the keystone x.l. pipeline because it will spur job creation, help us on our way to energy independence and increase access to affordable north american oil. ask any mom responsible for balancing the family checkbook whether affordable energy matters to her. it does. keystone x.l. is the most studied pipeline in our nation's history. thousands of pages prove its worth to our economy and national interests and further documents its safety. on this fifth anniversary of keystone's original application, it's time for the president to put his excuses aside. it's time to build. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: once again, house republicans have put struggling families on the chopping block.
they're cutting snap, our nutrition program, by nearly $40 billion. millions of americans will completely lose their assistance or see their monthly benefits drastically cut. more than 8,000 families in my community will risk going hungry. these cuts hurt working families who struggle every day to put food on the table. they end benefits for people who want to work but can't find a job. even mothers with young children. they eliminate a vital safety net for many adults who are out of work. these cuts hurt children, seniors and veterans, all of whom rely on snap to survive. where are these millions of americans supposed to turn to for food? it's time for the republican leadership to stop playing games with the most vulnerable amongst us. they are literally taking the food out of hungry kids' mouths. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota eek recognition?
mrs. noem: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. noem: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the courageous actions of kelly and hazel of watertown, south dakota. on the night of august 6, 2013, kelly and hazel helped save the lives of over 40 elderly women and men at a nursing home. a fire started in one of the apartments and one of the residents, hazel, immediately informed kelly, the night manager, that the building was on fire. kelly promptly called 911 and immediately began knocking on tenant's doors, many of whom were sleeping. knowing that many of the doors were locked and many of the residents were heard of hearing and slightly immobile, kelly ran back to her apartment to get the master key. she knocked and awakened the residents and rushed them out of the building. without the quick action of hazel and the heroics of kelly and the local firefighters in watertown many would have lost their lives that night.
this story of special significance to me because kelly is also a member of my staff and lost everything she owns in that fire. residents of the home, the community of watertown and i will be forever grateful for herselfless act. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: many rely on the supplemental nutrition assistance program to put food on the table. but h.r. 3102 which we'll consider later today will let families in our districts go hungry. bill s contained in the could leave behind by 120,000 oregonians who are still struggling to recover from the recession. that's a huge number and will reverberate throughout our community. some might say that charitable are institutions can make up the difference, but that's just not so. they are already struggling to meet demand. without snap, millions of
americans will go hungry, plain and simple. we shouldn't be trying to balance the budget on the backs of hungry families. the bill that will be up today outright abandons them. if we're really concerned about the cost of snap, we should focus on addressing the root causes of hunger. let's cut poverty, not nutrition assistance. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to congratulate the five scientists receiving the golden goose award later today. it was created to recognize the important impact of federally funded research on the lives of americans today. this award highlights obscure research that has led to unexpected advances in unrelated fields, sometimes years after the original work took place. the beauty of research science is that we can never truly predict what discoveries result from a slightly better
understanding of our world. one conducted studies on the enom of gila monsters. mathematician developed algorithms to maximize marriage stability in the 1960's which were then used by an economist to match kidney recipients to patients and doctors with hospitals. dr. thomas brock and dr. hudson freese studied organisms in the extreme conditions of yellowstone park and it led to the better understanding of the heat necessary to study d.n.a. which fueled advances in biotechnology and the genomics revolution. far from laying a golden goose egg, these golden goose recipients have changed our world for the better. we recognize their work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, over 68,000 ventura county residents in my district rely on snap benefits
to make ends meet and put food on the table. ms. brownley: more than half of those 68,000 people are children. the bill before us today won't create jobs or improve our economy. it simply makes it harder for families, including our nation's veterans, to feed their children. om 2008 to 2011, snap food purchases tripled throughout the country which are opened to military families and veterans. currently 900,000 veterans across the country receive snap benefits. under h.r. 3102, benefits would be cut for as many as 170,000 veterans, some would lose their benefits entirely. a vote for this bill is a vote to let millions of children, seniors, people with
disabilities and veterans go hungry. i urge my colleagues to join me in fighting hunger in america by opposing this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, from time to time we have an opportunity to address legislation that will impact thousands of generations. since arriving in congress, i've voted to defund or repeal obamacare. not only does this run contrary to the basic american principles of personal freedom and limited government, it is already hurting our economy and it will be even more destructive as it is implemented this fall. as a small business owner, i have seen firsthand and in a very personal way the negative impacts of this law. it is no wonder that it is so unpopular. the original purpose of the affordable care act was to
drive health care costs down, but instead it has done exactly the opposite, driving up premiums by as much as 400%. we can do better. we must replace this law with legislation that will lower health care costs and improve the quality of care and protect american jobs. i look forward to voting in favor of the continuing resolution this week, which defunds this damaging health care law. the senate and the house can work together to find a constructive and alternative that will fix and improve our -- i look forward to working with them to do that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the nutrition reform and work opportunity act. the g.o.p.'s efforts to cut $40 billion in snap benefits over
10 years show how disconnected they are with our most vulnerable citizens. 46 million low-income people will be affected by these cuts, including 450,000 residents in dallas county that are food insecure. almost 300,000 of them are children. many of our citizens already living on the edge of poverty, and these cuts would virtually eliminate the assistance they desperately need. i'm deeply troubled by the agenda to dismantle the snap program. it is not just an african-american and hispanic population who receive these benefits. it is the working class, the elderly, the children and disabled. cutting this program would be devastating to millions of americans who is are working hard to pro-- who are working hard to provide for nair family. i ask my colleagues to -- for their family. i ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the neediest citizens. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: jabe. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to speak against the discriminatory practice of the southern poverty law center through the use of so-called hate mapping and its proliferation of intolerance. . the southern poverty law septre has placed it self at the forefront of christian persecution and religious intolerance. because of its misplaced hate mapping on august 15 of last year, floyd lee corkins entered the council and shot and badly injured the building manager who stopped the killing spree. their radical intolerance of traditional values is not only hyper polarizing but spurred on this violence. spreading discrimination against those who believe in traditional christian values is not fighting hatred. rather it is espousing further bigotry. our country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. when the splc demonizes any
person who remains steadfast in their conviction, it increases intolerance in society. mrs. hartzler: i ask my colleagues to join me in fighting for religious intolerance in the world by calling for an end including those with christian beliefs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise in support of our children suffering the unthinkable. as we recognize september is national childhood cancer awareness month. cancer is a leading cause of death from disease among u.s. children over the age of 1. moreover, cancer kills more children than cystic fibrosis, aids, asthma, and juvenile diabetes combined. there are many organizations doing good work to raise awareness, conduct research,
including roswell park cancer institute, and women and children's hospital in buffalo while working together in western new york to cure our youngest cancer patients. our children deserve to be cancer free. they deserve the opportunity to be just kids and have a full life. they deserve a cure. we owe it to them and their families to make it happen by supporting strong federal investments in cancer research far beyond what we are doing today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as we debate snap reforms i want to draw attention to recent analysis which shows that thousands of families avoid the need for public assistance because of private disability insurance benefits. most of those covered by private disability insurance receive it from their employer. for a low premium, roughly $25
per month, workers receive 0% of their salary should they become disabled. with this benefit the worker is able to provide for their families, pay bills, and buy food and medicines. mr. fleischmann: workers can then focus on recovery. the 2011 analysis by charles river associates highlights several things. like the fact that americans underestimate the risk of becoming disabled. a few american households have the savings to withstand a loss of income. because the income offered by disability insurance, the study estimates nearly 575,000 families avoid both poverty and public assistance each year. this translates into an annual $4.5 billion savings. if we could cover more workers we can save tax dollars. unfortunately only about 1/3 of the workers have access to employer-sponsored disability insurance. we must raise awareness about both the risk of disability and the affordability of insurance. snap helps the needy, but a backup plan who insures can save
taxpayer money. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's no secret that we as a nation face tough choices on how to resolve our fiscal disagreements. mrs. davis: but a government shutdown or default is exactly the wrong answer. every day people all across our country figure out how to get their jobs done despite all sorts of disagreements. we must remember that compromise was the foundation of our constitution and the cornerstone of our system of government, but for some reason people here in washington seem to have forgotten this most basic idea. my constituents in san diego have worked too hard and struggled too much to fight through this economic downturn. the last thing they need is a government shutdown because some in congress can't get their act
together. are we really, are we really going to let petty politics prevent us from doing the work to fund our government? are we really going to stop processing of checks to our constituents, to our veterans, and to law enforcement? mr. speaker, a shut down or default is not governance, it's lunacy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the president has repeatedly boasted that last month the unemployment rate dropped to 7.3%, the lowest it has been in nearly five years. mr. speaker, although the rate has fallen for many, it is not because they found jobs but rather because they stopped looking for one and left the job market all together. while the president has concentrated on this figure, other numbers simply cannot be ignored. mr. holding: there are still too many areas of the country where
unemployment is far higher. for example, in four of the nine counties which i represent in north carolina, the unemployment rate is in double digits. so is the national unemployment rate for folks 1 to 24-year-olds. mr. speaker -- 13 to 24-year-olds. mr. speaker, we should be doing what we can do to get people back to work and lighten their economic burden through increased taxes and regulations and overreaching health care law, this add m. has done exactly the opposite and has continued to play politics rather than promote pro-growth policies. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a great man, a legend in the community i have the honor to represent and a hero to our country, lieutenant colonel robert eugene chisholm.
he entered the military in 1942 and served 28 years, fighting for his country in world war ii, the korean war, and vietnam before retiring in 1971. he parachuted into normandy on d-day and fought in the battle of the bulk as well as operation market garden. mr. o'rourke: he's the recipient of more than 20 service awards, which include two presidential unit citations, purple heart with two oak leaf clusters and bronze star. his service did not end when he left the army. he helped found the robert patterson all airborne chapter of the 82nd airborne division in el paso, texas, an important veteran service organization in our community. he's a shining example of why his really is the greatest generation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one
minute. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. delaney: mr. speaker, the food stamp bill today is a chance to reform the food stamp -- to decrease the waste, fraud, and abuse and make sure people who need help get it. this week 10 baltimore businesses were indicted for stealing $7 million in food stamps. that's a travesty. one store like the one pictured right here defrauded the american taxpayer for $2 million. mr. harris: in fact, the department of agriculture found that over 10% of stores participating in the program are committing food stamm many fraud. this bill reforms food stamps by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse by just 5%, cutting back on fraud like the second obama express store, and by making sure able-bodied adults are working, seeking work, or getting job training. mr. speaker, republicans aren't trying to take tood food out of
baby's mouths or make our seniors go hungry. don't believe the scare tactics from my colleagues who oppose the bill. this is a commonsense reform that cuts waste, fraud, and abuse leaving more money for the americans who truly need help in time of need. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's disheartening to stand here today once again to defend the meager nutritional assistance program and provide families in america. the $40 billion in snap cuts put forward by the republican majority is shameful. it's cruel and unusual punishment to americans whose soft voices are barely ever heard in the halls of congress. mr. deutch: 3/4 of snap benefits go to families with children. and every week across this nation there are parents who have to tell their kids, no, there's nothing left to eat in
our house tonight. i only wish my colleagues behind meese despicable cuts had to deliver that message. i only wish they had to say, i'm sorry. you've got to go to bed hungry. unfortunately, my colleagues have it far too easy. they'll never know what it's like to be hungry. their kids will never go to bed hungry. they can bring this heartless legislation to a vote without ever having to explain themselves to the families that they are hurting. please don't let them get away with it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in celebration of a.b.f. freight system's 90th birthday. since its humble beginnings in 1923 as a local freight haller they have grown to employ 10,000 people in north america with 1,000 in arkansas alone,
delivering brown-waite formedwide. today it continues to deliver value to its customers by developing and implementing customized solutions to global logistical challenges. it's fitting, mr. speaker, that this milestone coincides with national truck driver appreciation week. last year a.b.f. together with j.b. hunt, the other great trucking companies that call arkansas home and more than three million truck drivers in the united states were responsible for hauling 68 1/2% of all u.s. freight tonnage. mr. womack: without a.b.f. and trug drivers throughout the nation 0% of our communities that rely solely on trucking will not be able to access the goods on which they depend. thank you to all our truck drivers and happy birthday, 90th birthday to a.b.f. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. mr. moran: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: on monday, just about
a mile from here, once again our nation experienced a horrific incident of mass gun violence. our sympathies obviously go out to the friends and families who lost loved ones in the shooting at the washington navy yard. but as this chart shows, this mass shooting is only the latest in a long line that includes columbine and virginia tech and tucson and aurora and newtown. even these mass killings don't fully reflect our nation's problem with gun violence. each year 100,000 people in america shot by a gun, 30,000 died from a gun related injury, 10,000 murdered by a firearm, by 2015, gun related deaths will surpass auto related deaths for the first time. while it's too early to know what might have prevented this week's mass shooting, we do know what will ensure it will happen again, doing nothing. business as usual. the chief medical officer at med star hospital expressed the
sentiments of many when she pleaded, there's something evil in our society that we as americans all have to work to try and eradicate. we don't do all we can to reduce gun violence through stronger laws and improved services we'll all have to offer our constituents only more condolences. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, before the federal government got into health care, medical care was cheap and almost everyone could afford it. doctors even routinely made house calls. when medicare was passed it was predicted after 25 years it would cost only $12 billion. instead it costs 10 times that much. this year it will cost over $600 billion. all federal medical programs have cost many times more than was estimated on the front end. already we read obamacare is going to cost at least two or three times more when it was
estimated when it was passed. federal programs make and have made a few people and companies very wealthy. however they have made it so only multibillionaires can pay what is being charged for medical care. howard dean, a former democratic national chairman says obamacare will cause health care to be rationed. the unaffordable care act is taking us toward lower quality, shortages, waiting periods, and greater -- all at greater expense for medical care. it needs to be stopped before it makes our health care problems even worse than they now are. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the majority's unconscionable cuts to programs that help feed our nation's hungry. we are the wealthiest country in the world, yet nearly 15% of our
population lives in poverty. in my home city of new york, over 50,000 people live in homeless shelters and the number is growing. our economy is making progress, but there's still millions of people who are struggling. yet this proposal would kick off at least four million americans from the snap program and increase poverty in our country. women and children in particular bear the brunt of these cuts. 47% of snap he recipients are children and nearly -- snap recipients are children and nearly 2/3 go to women. earlier this week i saw firsthand how many families in our communities struggle to put food on the table when i visited our children's food pantry in long island city queens. the staff and volunteers of this private food bank they are heroes, but we cannot rely on these organizations to pick up the slack, they say that
participation is up 40%, defeat this major cut to nutrition to americans that need this nutrition i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. good jobs are hard to find these days. the gap between america's highest and lowest number families is wider than ever. mr. labrador: they are on unemployment more than anytime since world war ii. a record 46 million americans live in poverty. and what's the president's answers to these problems? he proposes driving forward on his prize achievement, obamacare. even though it's already a-- eraising jobs and reducing the ork hours of taxpaying
americans. i co-sponsored a resolution to keep the government open and to defund obamacare. house republicans support these goals. we will definned obamacare and we'll keep the government open at sensible spending levels. mr. messer: americans shouldn't have to suffer through this failed experiment any longer or have government operations held hostage by those unwilling to acknowledge that obamacare is not working. let's hope the president and his senate allies agree. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, house republicans are doubling down on the bad idea. mr. miller: these food stamp cuts will not only increase the incidents of hunger but the result in the loss of thousands of jobs throughout the food industry alone. because when poor families, children and the disabled andlederly cannot afford food,
they simply must go without. this is not economic stimulus. this is a national outrage. it's outrageous that 26 anonymous individuals receive over $1 million each in farm subsidies but $1.40 per meal for a hungry child is considered government waste. it's outrageous that some members of congress are voting to enrich themselves with these special interests with farm subsidies and refusing benefits to millions of the neediest and vulnerable americans. i issued a report earlier this year that detailed 14 members of congress who were worth up to $124 million, who receive $7.2 million in farm subsidies and yet they voted to cut a nutrition alouans for working -- allowance for working poor families, poor families and children. imagine that. and in honor of the chair, let me just say, that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady om cogn ion?
the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the house plan to hold a vote on a continuing resolution to fund the government and defund obamacare. mrs. walorski: this achieves two objectives, keeps the light on in federal government while halting an unworkable law. the list of problems with obamacare gets longer every day. this law was passed in 2010, but since -- just since last week, i'd like to share three examples that impact my district and the state of indiana. yesterday, just 12 days before the full implementation, the white house warned americans of quote-unquote massive fraud, triggered by obamacare, causing identity theft and cybersecurity leaks. last week, indiana university reported they're laying off 50 workers and sending them to a temp agency because of obamacare. this includes graduate students who are having their hours cut to stay under the 30-hour threshold. the "indiana star" reported that over 200,000 hoosiers are impacted by higher insurance rates under obamacare. the list is getting longer and
the problems are getting worse. the house plan is similar to legislation penned by my colleague, mr. fom graves, which has already been co-sponsored by 79 members of congress. i'm confident the house will work its will to pass this legislation to reflect the wishes of the american people. next, it's time for the senate to step up and do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today toic condemn yet another manufactured crisis that house leadership has created. mr. bera: americans are sick and tired of fighting and fighting again of having their economic security to put on the line. instead of doing their jobs, the republicans is taking us down a path of government shutdown. that means our military serving
overseas will have to work without pay while they're sacrificing for us, their families are going to struggle and they're going to worry about their families. it means benefits to our veterans, veterans that are already struggling to get benefits in a backlog are going to have to wait longer for those benefits. and it means the americans who count on social security, a program that they paid into their whole life, may not be able to get their payments. this is absolutely shameful, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the clock is ticking. we've got 11 days. let's do what's right and begin to work on a real budget, a budget that creates jobs, that secures a long middle class and starts to reduce our debt and the burden on the next generation. 11 days, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today, we have an opportunity to win a victory for common
sense. for decades, business as usual fostered an unholy alliance between food stamps and farm policy. mr. stutzman: for years washington spent money it never had. they considered a trillion dollar welfare bill. taxpayers had seen enough. the american people were able to defeat bush as usual by insisting that both food stamps and farm policy be considered individually and on their own merits. it's just common sense. finally, we passed a farm bill, farm-only farm bill that ended direct payments. today we can continue that work by passing a food stamp bill that doubles the savings that the house originally considered. mr. speaker, this bill eliminates loopholes, ensures work requirements and puts us on a fiscally responsible path. in the real world, we measure success by results. it's time for washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of
poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much washington bureaucrats spend year after year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in opposition to the drastic cuts proposed by the supplemental nutrition assistance program, known as snap. it helps millions of americans in need, including 16% of the residents of my state put food on the table, provide for their families and get back on their feet. this is a sad day because the house will soon vote to cut $40 billion, an enormous amount from the snap program. mr. kilmer: but this isn't about government programs. it's not even about dollars. it's about six million americans. it's about dismantling a highly effective program that my home
state has used to get people back to work. these tough economic times, we should be helping folks get back on their feet, and we shouldn't be asking the least fortunate among us to shoulder the burden for a congress that can't get its act together and pass a budget. martin luther king jr. once said, why should there be hunger and deprivation in any land, in any city at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessary its of life? there is no deficit of human resource. the deficit is human will. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i seek recognition to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: the majority leader and the tea party caucus have failed to provide snap funding for needy families. this is not something to be proud of and i never wanted to
make scapegoats out of the most vulnerable americans. the majority has held up passing bills to keep them afloat in 2014 because they want to demonize americans struggling to make ends meet. they enjoy the company of the very wealthy while eating cake while casting aside of those who have been sinnlinged economically. let me -- singed economically. let me propose a bill. a building that employs thousands of people in the majority leader's seventh congressional district of virginia and let's move those jobs to ohio's ninth congressional district. culpepper's loss will be cleveland's gain. after we strike this deal, we in ohio will enjoy the guaranteed jobs and income flows to which the seventh district of virginia has grown accustomed. we can cash in on the regular flow of funds to the majority leader's district that he takes for granted, including being the number one state for federal procurement in the
whole country. let's harmonize hoif's unemployment rate with virginia's. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the majority leader's harsh let them eat dirt proposal. he lives in an insulated economy. ohio does not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: we want responsible government that values every citizen. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. faleomavaega: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today in honor and remembrance of mr. jerry russell, a man dedicated to his family and his community who passed away on september 5, 2013. mr. russell was a generous man who committed his life to the fort worth theater community for 35 years. a rhode island native, mr. russell made his home in fort worth, texas, in 1973. it was there he left his job, a
well-paying job at national cash register, to pursue his career and dream and he started stage west theater in 1978. mr. russell led stage west by taking risk and never giving up on what became one of the early foundations of the fort worth theatrical community. now stage west is a major supporter of local theater performance and the arts in the dallas-fort worth area. while did he not attend college, he became a theater teacher at my alma mater at texas wes lien university where he spread -- wesleyan university where he spread his love for theater. he was major supporter of arts in the texas schools and communities. i will be remiss if i didn't mention in his spare time outside of the theater when he founded, he loved rooting for the texas rangers. go, rangers. he will always be regarded as a true talent and benefactor to not only the fort worth community but the state of texas. i offer my condolences to his friends and family. in addition to his wife, susan,
he leaves his five children behind, christopher, joe, kathy, jennifer and my friend, texas senator, wendy davis. he also leaves his legacy behind with 11 beautiful grandchildren and 10 great grandchildren. may he rest in peace and his legacy and contributions to the arts never be forgotten. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the house lays before the -- 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 september 19, 2013, at 11:39 a.m. appointments, public interest declassification board, signed incerely, karen l. haas.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 54, house resolution 351, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in -- the chair may declare the house resolved in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of the bill h.r. 687, to extract resources in southeast arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of federal and nonfederal land and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and
shall not be subject to a demand for a question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or wowed instructions. -- without instructions. section 2, at anytime after the adoption of this rule, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1526, to restore employment and educational opportunities and improve the economic stability of counties containing national
forest system planned while also reducing forest service management costs by ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from national forest system land to provide a temporary extension of the secure rural schools and community self-determination act of 2000 and for other purposes. . the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text rules committee print 113-21 modified by the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered
as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3102, to amend the food and nutrition act of 2008, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without interconvening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture, and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. congratulations to the clerk for
the long reading of the rule. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from worcester, massachusetts, my dear friend and spent a lot of time with him yesterday, the gentleman, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to .evise and extend their remarks the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 351 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 687 and h.r. 1526 and provides a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 3102. mr. speaker, the first of these bills is h.r. 687, the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act. this bill permits a land
conveyance which will lead to the development of important copper deposits in arizona that is estimated to create 3,700 jobs and $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. that is a great reason to be on the floor on behalf of the republican party of the united states of america. we are on the floor today because people in arizona on a bipartisan basis have asked that their elected representatives on a bipartisan basis come to the asked states government and for swapping lands that would result in 3,700 american jobs, probably about 3,700 jobs in arizona, and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. what a great reason for paul
gosar and doc hastings, the chairman of the natural resources committee, to approach the rules committee about getting that bill on the floor today. we hear over and over and over and over about jobs, job creation, middle class, let me tell you what, mr. speaker. 3,700 jobs for the middle class in arizona and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity are available to members of congress today where they can make a decision about what they want to vote on. i submit to you the republican party is for those 3,700 middle class jobs. the second bill before us today is h.r. 1526, the restoring healthy forest for healthy communities act. this legislation will improve the health of our nation's forest by promoting effective forest management while simultaneously strengthening a timber sales revenue sharing
program which is, once again, designed to allow rural communities to benefit from their local natural resources. i will go back and say it again, the reason why we are on the floor today is, is that the republican party wants local rural communities to be -- to have a part of their cost sharing with the money that would come in to help rural communities to benefit from what sits in their own back beyond a reasonable doubt, their own natural resources, which, as we as republicans understand, is best admired and best taken care of when local people take care of their own needs. point view, why the republican party is on the floor of the house of representatives today for local rural communities. the final bill considered in this rule is h.r. 3102, the
natural -- i'm sorry the nutrition reform and work opportunity act. this final legislation reforms, i have the word reforms because it needs reform, reforms our nation's nutrition programs, saving taxpayers about $40 billion while maintaining critical benefits to helping america's neediest families, seniors, children, and veterans. h.r. 3102 reinforces our country's commitment to those who cannot help themselves while working to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. what is the waste, fraud, and abuse? it is many, many people who should not be receiving these needy items that should be reserved for those who need it the most by people who are able-bodied and we should not
extend those benefits to people who actually can take care of themselves. so, you're going to hear a robust argument today that will take place, took place for hours yesterday in the rules committee, as we considered amendments after amendments. ideas after ideas. and each and every person, whether they would be republican or democrat were treated with fairness and opportunity to equally present their ideas with the knowledge that there was a committee, the rules committee, on a bipartisan basis that was available and ready to engage each of those members on their ideas that are called amendments, and that is why we are on the floor of the house of representatives today. i urge my colleagues to support the rule. we'll talk a little bit more about it, and to support the underlying legislation and of course we will take about that more during this hour. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves
his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from texas, my friend, the chairman of the committee, mr. sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this is a sad day in the people's house. today the republican leadership is bringing to the floor one of the most heartless pieces of legislation i have ever seen. a bill to take food away from some of our most vulnerable neighbors. after a $20 billion cut was voted down by the house in june, the republican leadership has decided to double down on the cruelty with a $40 billion cut. it is terrible policy wrapped in a terrible process. this is a 109-page bill that would gut the snap program, cut billions of dollars, and make major changes to the way snap works. and there hasn't been a single hearing, not a single markup. it didn't even go through the
agriculture committee. today it's being brought to the floor under a closed rule. it was just cooked up in the majority leader's office as some sort of heritage foundation fever dream. c.b.o. says that the bill would cut 3.2 million low-income people from 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's no confusion. people who work but who don't make enough to feed their families will be cut from this program. the biggest cut affects millions of unemployed, childless adults who live in areas of high unemployment. these are poor people. many don't have the skills or education they need to find a job. it is a group whose average income is about $,500 a year. $2,500 a year.
and for most snap is the only government assistance that they receive. now, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families would also lose their free school meals, and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their snap benefits as well. let me repeat, 170,000 veterans will lose their benefits. these are the people who have served our country. how can you do that? mr. speaker, we are 45 years and a million miles away from the war on poverty. the republican leadership has instead launched a war on poor people. this bill is not about reform. it is not about making snap a better, stronger program. mr. speaker, it is not easy to be poor in america. it is not -- 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 add up.
fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. think of people like bob dole and bill emerson. and i know that a lot of republicans, moderates and conservatives, are very nervous about this bill. so i would say to them, don't do this. please don't do this. don't go along with cutting food benefits to millions of struggling families. don't make hundreds of thousands of children and seniors and veterans go hungry. don't put the food banks and church pantries in your districts into an even deeper hole. the people who rely on snap to feed their families struggle every single day. please don't make their lives even harder. it is not too late. we do not need to pass this bill in order to go to conference in the farm bill. i would urge my colleagues to search their consciouses and vote against this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much, i'm pleased to be joined today by the gentleman
from california, mr. mcclintock, who serves on the natural resources committee and the budget committee, from oak grove, california. i'd like to extend the gentleman three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman so much for yielding. listening to the debate on the other side i think there is a misunderstanding on the nutrition bill. it doesn't cut people off from food stamps. what it does is simply ask that they either work, look for work, or train for work while they are receiving those benefits. this is $ 0 billion a year, that's about $760 from the taxes of every average family in america. i think that they have a right as a condition of extending that aid to ask that those on it do everything they can to get off of it. but i am here today to support h.r. 1526, the healthy forest
restoration act. i represent the communities of the sierra nevadas that have just been devastating by the yosemite rim fire that incinerated some 700 square miles of forest land. federal environmental regulations have forced an 80% drop in timber harvests in this region over the past 30 years despite urgent warnings from foresters that the excess timber would either be carried out or burned out. as the timber harvests have declined, the acreage burned has increased contemporaneously and proportionately. the great irony, of course, is there's nothing more environmentally devastating to a forest than a forest fire. in addition to reporting out h.r. 1526 that restores sound forest management practices in the future that will reduce or prevent such catastrophes in the future, the rule makes in order emergency amendments to deal with the aftermath of this fire. -- one ted $1 billion
billion feet of timber can be salvaged if and only if we act soon. within a year, the timber will become unsalvageable. this measure sets aside the litigation that routinely delays these salvage sales until the timber becomes worthless. this means a surge of employment in the mountain communities that have been devastated by this fire and a new stream of revenue for the federal government that would otherwise be lost. i want to thank the rules committee for acting on this imperative, and i look forward to the debate and passage of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. sessions: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, it's my pliverage to yield two -- privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, the ranking member of the committee on agriculture. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the bill made in order, h.r. 3102,
which is just another example of the republican majority's misplaced priorities. i've been working on this farm bill for nearly four years. from the beginning, i've said that i think it's possible to find some middle ground and to make reasonable responsible reforms in nutrition programs. unfortunately, this bill is neither reasonable nor responsible. the house failed to pass the agriculture committee's bipartisan farm bill because it was hijacked with partisan amendments on the floor, amendments that are included in this bill that we're considering here today. this bill goes even further by eliminating state requested bodied to exempt able adults in high unemployment areas from snap requirements. to be clear, these waivers are required only at the request of the states. they are under no requirement to do apply and may choose to opt out in the future. so there's a lot of pipockry see coming from the other --of .
in fact, a majority of republican governors have asked to waive these current work requirements. this notion that we have to pass this bill, as mr. mcgovern said, to go to conference is not true. the house passed h.r. 2642, which can be conferenced with the senate, and there's no reason to pass this bill here today other than to placate some people that want to make a point. this bill isn't going anyplace in the senate, the president wouldn't sign it so i don't know what we're doing. in july a broad coalition of more than 500 organizations expressed their opposition to splitting this farm bill. senator bob dole expressed his opposition recently in doing it. letter to house members, the american farm bureau fed operation president said, we're quite concerned without a workable nutrition title it will prove nearly impossible to adopt a bill that can be successfully conferenced with the senate's version, approved by the house and senate and signed by the president. all this bill is going to do is make our job harder, if not
impossible, to pass a new farm bill. i strongly oppose this rule and the bill and i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from minnesota coming down and giving us his thoughts on what we're attempting to do today. the bottom line is that what we're going to do is we're going to make natural and i believe reasonable changes to the nutrition program that will help sustain it rather than growing and growing and growing the amount of money that's necessary to sustain this, we're going to put it into a perspective to where it is available and ready for the neediest of americans which is what the food stamp program really is all about. in fact, we are here to make sure that when our great
chairman of the agriculture committee, frank lucas, goes to a conference with the united states senate that we give him a full portfolio of the thoughts and ideas about the changes that we would make to the entire agriculture bill. and chairman lucas has -- one of the most awesome members of our conference and who yesterday spent a number of hours with us, not just to get us to understand what we're trying to do, but why we're trying to do what we're doing. it means that we will arm him with the available content to go to the conference with the senate to make the farm bill, that includes the nutrition program, even better and sustainible. i think the gentleman, mr. mcclintock, said it best, and that what we're trying to do is make sure that the neediest americans get what they want
and need but it's simply and i believe carefully says whether you're able bodied and on food stamps, you have to be looking for work also. you have to make sure that you're part of trying to go and better your life, not using the as an mp program alternative to the hard work which will help you and perhaps your family but certainly your community and country even stronger. and so it becomes an incentive to do exactly that. just like what we did in welfare reform in the early 1990's where welfare reform, jobs became the substitute and really a demand that you needed to go look for a job and millions of people took us up on that and bettered their life and that's what we're trying to do now. there are still jobs available in america. there's still jobs available,
and they might not all aught to be the job you want to stay in for the rest of your life, but it means you need to go and actively participate because there are those behind so to speak the program that are the neediest of most americans. and i will tell you that i understand some of those people. some of those people that live within the district that i represent in texas, but also understand them firsthand in dealing with disabled people and families with disabled children and families with disabled adults. and where a person cannot take care of them self, we are not putting that at risk at all. where a person cannot take care of them self and needs the benefits of the community, in this case, a nutrition person, we need to make sure that there is more money that is available to them. there was a discussion about the average cost not being very
much and i think that's a true statement. we'd like to increase the cost more and better food, including fruits and vegetables and other items in the future, but the only way we can do this is if we're aiming at the people who need it the most. and that's where this great nation will continue, not only through their food banks that are available across the country because of local people getting involved but also the competition that comes from the federal government to help work with them to better the lives, the nutrition of children and seniors and veterans and families that need them the most. and that's what this is trying to do to to reform that program. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, republican talking points aside, according to c.b.o., this bill if passed will result in 3.8 million people losing their benefits including
170,000 veterans. that is shameful. i appreciate the gentleman's concern about the waivers but i remind him that his governor of texas, rick perry, has requested waivers on a number of occasions because people haven't been able to find jobs in his state of texas. so if you have a problem with the waivers, you ought to talk to your own governor. at this point i'd like to yield for unanimous consent to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. fug. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. fudge: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the story of adam, a disabled man from ohio, a face of hunger. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, for unanimous consent recognize. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. o'rourke: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record information from the u.s. ensus bureau that 329 active duty community people in fort bliss use snap benefits to put
food on the table. the speaker pro tempore: i ask unanimous consent to the gentleman from to the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: i ask unanimous consent to sinin certificate into the record a store eave dorothy, a grandmother from a state of south dakota and she represents the face of hunger. here she is with her family. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps, for unanimous consent request. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the congressional record the story of rosemary. she's a grandmother from little rock, arkansas. she is a face of hunger today in the united states of america. mr. faleomavaega: without objection, so ordered. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair would advise members that although a unanimous consent request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple declare tiff statement of the member's attitude toward
the pending measure. embellishments beyond that standard debate can become an imposition of time of the member who has yielded time for that purpose. the chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be necessary to accommodate all members. but the chair must also ask members to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form and procedure of the house. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of beatrice, a mother from camden, new jersey, a face of hunger. and this is her child. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pascrell: thank you. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur, for unanimous consent request. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of shelly, an unemployed mother with two children from ohio, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for unanimous consent request. ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of melinda, a cancer survivor and single mother from texas, a face of hunger. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the the gentlelady from california, ms. lee, for unanimous consent request. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a story of steven, a father from san francisco, california, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro, for unanimous consent request. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of jennifer, a mother from new mexico, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for unanimous consent request. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the congressional record the story of stephanie, a mother from roanoke, virginia, a face of hunger in america.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for a unanimous consent request. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of a mother from little rock, arkansas, just west of memphis, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for unanimous consent request. mr. price: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the story of nathan, a veteran from rapid city, south dakota, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, for unanimous consent question. ms. carsor: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the stories of lorraine from sarasota, florida, and another, a senior citizen from tampa, florida, faces of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the
gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for unanimous consent request. mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the story of marvin, a disabled man from atlanta, georgia, a face of hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, my party and myself understand that our country for five years has gone through very difficult times. and our party and the american eople, through various ways, have been asking this administration, the democrat party, please allow us to have an opportunity with more jobs being available in the united states of america. and the democratic party, up to and including the president of the united states, are more
interested in a out of balanced environmental policy that is placing a demand on the consumers to pay double the prices that they did before the president came into office for gasoline, double the prices of food, and availability of jobs just as we're here today to talk about in arizona, 3,700 new jobs, we've tried to do this with the x.l. pipeline that would extend across a number of states and i don't know if some of the faces of hunger were included in those that could be hired as a result of the x.l. pipeline but every ay there are americans who are losing their job, who are
losing a career because of the policies of our president, barack obama, and the democrats , elected members of congress, who insist on having rules and regulation up to and including a government-run health care plan that is diminishing careers and opportunities for people to have health care and full-time jobs. if it weren't true, someone would say it was just a cruel joke. but the bottom line is, that the business community across america is now changing the rules of employment from 40-hour work weeks to 30 or even 20 and this is happening as a result, directly as a result of the policies of the people who complain most about the middle class not having jobs. is perpetrated exactly on a
partisan basis with zero republicans participating, to have rules, regulations, and a government-run health care system that is unemployeing america only to turn around later and find out, so we've got to spend more money to take care of people who don't have jobs. mr. speaker, there are divides in our country. there are divides between the parties. but today the republican party is on the floor trying to say that we need to change the law so that local communities that have forests in their back ards can share in the money, washington can't have it all, you've got to share with them. we're here so say we're for a land swap that the people in
arizona agree with and sent their elected representatives here to say, we'd like 3,700 more jobs in arizona, $60 billion worth of economic activity and we're here today to say, because we have such expanding roles of people who are -- rolls of people who are hungry in america and who are filing to get food stamps that we need to be able to set a mark and that mark is, as long as you're looking for a job and you're able bodied, then we understand. but the neediest of americans need what we're doing and that we are not going to give up on. so the republican party is here with an open ear, a strong voice, and a kind heart, but what we are saying back is, mr. president and democrat party, you need to help us grow jobs
in america. you need to let loose keystone pipeline, which has been studied to death for the last five or six years. you need to be with us today on the 3,700 more jobs in arizona. you need to be with us today because we're the ones that are talking about jobs. in healthy forest background, timber, where it's back home in rural areas because rural people deserve a chance to have a job and be taken care of too. the republican party is quite consistent in our behavior. we want jobs, we want job creation and we put the legislation on the floor that accomplishes just that. that's why we're here today. we're a party that cares about people and we're trying to make life better for the middle class and all americans in this country. we reserve our time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we hear this every day, you don't like the president, and while you debate his policies, don't take it out on poor people. don't take it out on poor people. 170,000 veterans will lose their benefits. this bill is not a thoughtful bill, it's a thoughtless bill because it hasn't even gone through committee. this is more of a political statement than sound policy or even bad policy, it's just plain politics. it's red meat for, i guess, the extreme right wing base. i'm hoping there are people on your side who will see through this and stand with us and do the right thing because there's been a bipartisan tradition in this congress in supporting efforts to prevent hunger. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from onnecticut, ms. delauro.
ms. delauro: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i rise to protest this rule and the deep cuts, disastrous cuts of food stamps. these $40 billion in cuts go against decades of bipartisan support for the fight against hunger in the united states. they will hurt our economy and they are in a word, immoral. if this cruel legislation were to become law, at least four million of the nation's poorest citizens would lose access to the food that they need. we are talking about people on the edge. families whose breadwinners just got laid off. veterans, returning from service, who are looking for jobs, 170,000 of them. seniors, struggling to make ends meet after a lifetime of work and who will be forced to make the choice between food and medicine and millions of low income children whose futures will be irrep rahably
harmed by these reckless cuts. don't take my word for it. working with the census data, the center for budget and policy priorities projects that 170,000 veterans could lose access to food stamps under the provisions of this bill. aarp called these efforts to cut anti-hunger programs, and i quote, abandonment of the nation's commitment to ensuring essential nutrition access for u.s. households. two former senate majority leaders, republican and democrat, bob dole, tom daschle, have called this bill, again i quote, an about-face and our pro-- in our progress fighting hunger. senator dole is right, the majority's leadership has lost its way on this issue. for decades there's been bipartisan support for food stamps, our nation's most important anti-hunger program.
they help over 47 million americans, nearly half of them are children, escape the scourge of hunger. nearly all food stamp recipients live below 130% of the poverty line. 5% of food stamp households include a child a senior citizen or a disabled person and they boast one of the lowest error rates of any government program. economists agree that food stamps have a powerful, positive impact on the economy, not just families but the entire economy. they get money into the hands of people who spend it on the food that they need, so cutting anti-hunger funding like this is not just immoral, it makes no economic sense. i might add it makes no economic sense either to cut $40 billion from food stamps for the poor while preserving $90 billion in crop insurance for the wealthy including 26 farmers who made over $1
million from the federal government. 26 wealthy farm owners who we are prevented from identifying, they won't tell us who they are. they are protected. it is just plain wrong. if the majority's leadership is serious about wanting to lower the number of americans, increase the minimum wage. taking food out of the mouths of the hungry is not an option. mr. segs: i would like to ask or regular order please. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman who served in the united states air force from gainesville, georgia, serves on the judiciary committee, oversight and government reform, i'd like to yield to the gentleman, mr. collins, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three mins. mr. collins: i come to the floor and i'm getting ready to
support this rule, i have to stop for a moment and discuss some things i've heard. i agree with my friends across the aisle, it is about political choices. it is about political decisions we make, where we're going to spend money and how we're going to do that and what we believe in job and how jobs are being created. the republican majority has been doing theasm republican majority is focused on jobs. the republican majority is focused on getting regulatory burdens off of businesses. i spent the last month and a half in my district and the word i could use to describe everything was uncertainty. it was uncertainty from the business owners, the ones who write on the front of the checks when they say, i want to employee other people and help others but i don't know if i can because i don't know with the expanding regulation work the upcoming health care law, i don't know if i can do that. it is about political choices and the republican majority is making it in favor of the working class, in favor of the middle class and those who are hurting in our country. we want to give jobs, we want
to get it out of the way so those jobs can be create. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of this rule, for these reasons. because you know something, i have noticed something as a freshman here in washington, there's one thing i notice that i don't see in georgia. i see a lot of condos going up here in d.c., i see a lot of new government buildings and new government jobs but you know what i see? that's great for inside the beltway, i'm happy for up here. but that doesn't translate in georgia nine. in georgia nine we're still recovering and needing help and needing a -- an economy that gets its budget balanced and priorities in order so we can have job creation, that's where we need it all across the kyntry, not here in the wonderful land of government. we hear talk about developing renewable resources, i hear it almost every night on this floor. i believe timber is the orblingal renewable resource and we need to do a better job of managing it. while much of the conversations today will related to western
forests, i want to speak about what the bill means for the eastern part of the country, specifically georgia. we have a forest that covers much of the ninth district, tim bever used before the national forest system existed. much of it is actively managed and provides timber for many uses. unfortunately, bureaucracy and red tape have made it nearly impossible harvest timber in the national forest. in caubtry bressed with abundant natural resources we owe it to our ancestors and descendants to be responsible stewards of this valuable commodity. while we have not had the catastrophic forest fires in georgia many of the states have suffer through the, we have suffered extreme drought and put us in danger. understanding the forests are poorly -- forest fires are caused by poor management is a
first step. by returning these forests to active management we will not only grow our forests we can grow our economy as well. h.r. 1526 includes reforms for supporting the rural schools program. s that program that needs to be reformed but in a thoughtful way that recognizes the unique position that our rural schools are in. we can't continue to send federal dollars to local schools through a system that can't pay for itself and this bill provides funding sources for local schools that have missed out on revenue this bill gives schools that have grown dependent on these funds a chance to transition into a new system, one that is sustainable and promotes investments in our natural and forest resources. this bill is good for the economy and i stop where i started, the republican majority is about jobs. the republican majority is jobs for all of the people in our economy not
just the ones we choose. the vice president: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind the gentleman who just spoke there are 36,000 households in his district in georgia that rely on snap. i think they're counting on him to vote a different way. i yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. they have made a political choice. they have made a political choice for the snap program and i'm glad he publicly acknowledged that. i rise to oppose h.r. 3102. the republicans are determined to defund this program, a program that provides food assistance to low-income families and to more than 20% f my congressional district.
the speaker wouldn't schedule a vote. why? because the tea party said not enough cuts. the republicans then increased nutrition cuts to $20.5 billion and the speaker crossed his finger and hoped for passage. it went down on this floor in defeat. not a single democrat voted for it. many republicans said the cut was not enough. now here we are again today. the republicans driven by the irrational tea party bring us another nutrition title that now cuts $40 billion from nutrition. my friends, i know that cutting the deficit is important to all of us, but do not, do not, do not reduce the deficit by depriving more than three million good americans of the opportunity to eat. that's not who we are as a nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. our next speaker is from oregon, he's the chairman of the telecommunications and technology subcommittee for
energy and commerce, i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. walden: i thank the chairman for his good work on this legislation, and i want to thank my colleagues for what i hope will be their support of passage for this legislation. specifically parts related to the federal forest land. federal forest land across the nation is rotting, it's dying and it's burning because the federal government has failed to manage our forests. you know, when we actively manage our forest and selectively logged our lands, we had vibrant ecosystems and we had vibrant and healthy economies. now, the forests are overstocked, they're diseased and infested and they go up in smoke. communities literally are dying. counties are literally on the edge of bankruptcy. in my state, some of those counties have 50% to 70% of the
land mass in federal forest lands are grass lands. most forests are overstocked and disease infested, communities are dying, mills are closing. children, you talk about children living in poverty, misguided federal policy on forest land management puts children in my district into poverty and their parents out of work. local communities struggle to provide even basic services like law enforcement and schools. h.r. 1526, the restoring healthy forests for healthy communities act, returns more active management to our federal forest lands. this proposal has been crafted with input from federal foresters, industry representatives and most importantly the residents of these local communities that are living in poverty, subject to choking catastrophic and sometimes deadly wildfires and the choking smoke that fills our valleys now every summer.
h.r. 1526 also includes a balanced and bipartisan plan for unique oregon forests. oregonians have been managing forests since time of the oregon trail, most likely, and 're proud of our oregon best practices act. with protections for water, for streams, and for regeneration of our forests for future generations. unfortunately, yesterday we got word that the white house has issued a veto threat on this urgently needed and balanced bill. the president and his team clearly have no idea, none on what's happening in our rural communities with federal forest lands surrounding them in the west. counties are literally going broke. folks are facing double-digit unemployment and double-digit
poverty. itizens call 911 for emergency help and are told literally, sorry, we can't help you. there's no one to send. and fires are raging throughout our forests. enough is enough. the system is broken. this law will change that and fix that, and the white house needs to understand that and be a partner for progress, not an enemy of it. today, the house will act to provide relief for citizens in these rural communities, and i urge my colleagues to choose jobs, safety, health of our rural communities and health of our forests for future generations. to reject poverty and unhealthy forests, because that's what we face today. so i urge a yes vote on the rule, a yes vote on the underlying bill because our rural communities have waited too long for this relief. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself five seconds. i just wanted to say to the
gentleman from oregon that there were one in five oregonians that are on food stamps as we gather here today. in his district there are nearly 60,000. he talked a lot about trees, but there are a lot of people that will be adversely affected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i don't have any time. at this time i'd yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the harmful, harmful underlying bill. 15,000, yes, 15,000 families in my district on the central coast of california rely every day on the snap program to help make ends meet. these are our veterans, our seniors, people with disabilities, hardworking parents and kids going to school. they don't care if snap cuts come from the farm bill or as a stand-alone bill.
they do care that the cuts create a gaping hole in our country's most basic, most basic safety net. and we should all care because cuts to snap have a ripple effect in our local communities and throughout our economy. every snap dollar has nearly doubled the economic impact. it helps pay the local grocery store worker. it helps support truckers who haul the food. it goes to the food producers and farmers who grow the crops. i urge my colleagues to stop playing politics with our nation's hungry and those who provide the food we all rely on. vote no on this rule, no on the bill and let's get back to passing comprehensive, inclusive farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: jofments. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. price: mr. speaker, i rise
in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. you may have noticed fox news is trying to help the republicans pushing this mean-spirited legislation by focusing on a california surfer who abuses the snap system. well, it's time for a reality check. this isn't about surfer dudes. but i tell you one group it isn't about, our nation's veterans. 50,000 of them to be exact. let me clarify. these veterans with an average income of $2,500, would lose benefits immediately. and as the bill's other provisions kick in, as many as 170,000 veterans could lose their snap assistance. in cumberland, our unemployment rate is nearly 11%. this bill requires states to terminate the already minimal food aid available to abled bodied individuals living in such high unemployment areas. and by the way, republicans
would also subject these veterans to the already indignity of a drug test. i urge a no vote on this rule and the underlying bill. it disparages those, the gospel of matthew calls the least of these. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i yield to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the rule and say i will be so proud to vote today not to take food away from children and veterans and the disabled and the unemployed . over half of those who receive these benefits are young children and senior citizens, and this is one of those moments of true clarity between the leadership of both parties. the republican leadership actually, their proposal will
increase hunger across our country by taking away snap benefits from millions of americans. and they claim that restricting snap eligibility will encourage those who are receiving benefits to take work. but what this fails to recognize is there are about three unemployed workers for every job that's out there in our country right now. and in some places, it's even worse than that. and even if an unemployed person filled every available job, roughly two of every three unemployed individuals would still not have a job because there aren't enough yet to go around in our country. people are struggling. i just want to say this is one of those moments when i am so proud to be a democrat and stand with my colleagues today against these cuts to food across -- food assistance across our country. mr. sessions: we should have a standard about what's being honest in the bill and we are not throwing off people who are disabled. it is an able bodied standard
and the gentlewoman knows that. mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from hood river, oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i thank my colleague from texas, because i wanted to respond to my friend from massachusetts who didn't have any more time to yield or talk about it after he talked about people in my district on food stamps. indeed, they are, and they don't want to be. and if you'd support our legislation that's bipartisan on healthy forests, they'd have dignity and a job and they'd be able to take care of their families and they would have schools and i know they have dignity when they're on food stamps. i understand that. i also know they'd feel much better about their role in life if they could go and be productive again as they were. we've seen 300 mills close, 30,000 people lose their jobs and there's a solution here that doesn't raid the federal treasury and borrow money. to pay for it. it's called a job.
and we wouldn't spend over half the forest service budget fighting fire. instead we would replenish our forest, we'd get them healthy again. we wouldn't choke our valleys in the summer which is occurring all over the country because we'd be managing these great federal forest reserves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me suggest to my republican colleagues, maybe they ought to deal with sequester, maybe they ought to stop threatening to shut the government down, maybe they ought to bring the president's job bill fought floor to put people back to work. in the meantime, they ought not to throw poor people off of food assistance. mr. walden: if the gentleman will yield? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. mcgovern. thank you so much for yielding. let me just say i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. the $40 billion cuts to the anti-poverty snap program are immoral, they're heartless and they really are un-american. these cuts do not reflect the compassion of the american
people. the so-called reforms in this bill will only dramatically reduce access to vital nutrition assistance all across america in rural and urban communities and every -- in every single one of our congressional districts. in my district, over 22,000 households will be impacted and more than 1.6 million homes throughout california. not only does snap help put food on the table tore h for struggling families, it helps stimulate economic growth. mr. speaker, 76% of snap recipients are children, seniors and persons with disabilities. this is a cold-blooded cut. the majority of people on food stamps want to work. i haven't seen the majority bring any bill to the floor that really creates jobs for people. i have to say, yes, i was on food stamps during a very difficult period in my life. and i thank the american people for that lifeline as a bridge over troubled waters. while we are recovering from these devastating -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady seconds. ms. lee: thank you. let me conclude by saying,
while we're recovering from this devastation recession, we should not cast the most vulnerable aside. there are many in the majority who are people of faith. i want to remind you of the scriptures which require us to feed the hungry. there's something fundamentally wrong when we pray on sunday and vote to take away food from hungry people on thursday. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 13 1/2. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i yield myself 130eks seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 130ekds. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i have a disabled child at home, a downsyndrome young man. i understand very well about the need for our country to help and provide assistance to disabled people. it is not true and it's unfair for someone to characterize this bill as taking someone who is disabled off of the snap rolls. and i am sorry that we have
members that evidently have not read the bill and do not understand what we're doing, but that's a fact and we should not pass along information that in fact is not true. and i hope that this body would stay away from that very emotional issue, because it's not only not fair but it's not true. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: let me say to my friend from texas, we know exactly what you all are doing here. you are throwing 3.8 million people off this program who rely on it to put food on the table. i want to point out, the average length of someone on snap is nine months. there are people who work, work full time, who are on snap because they don't earn enough. people want to work. they don't want to be on public assistance but the bottom line is we have had a congress that is block -- that has blocked
every piece of legislation that might produce jobs. let's get our facts straight here. at this point, i would yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: i'm opposed to this rule and the underlying bill. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to act like 11 million unemployed americans are out of work because they want to be out of work. this is a debate between -- is is a debate between two things. common sense versus no sense. you even offer a jewel to the states and you say to the states, if you cut more people off your rolls, we'll let you keep half the money. and then you can do with it whatever you want. that is immoral. that is totally nonsensical.
doesn't make any sense whatsoever. we're talking about kids, talking about veterans and we are talking about the disabled. that's what we're talking about. if you don't think this bill cuts all of the -- many of those people off the rolls, then you obviously did not use, to use your term you didn't read the bill. nearly 30,000 households in my district benefit from this program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i ask you to examine the bill and examine your conscience. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman will suspend. the chair would remind members to avoid references in the second person. mr. sessions: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding.
i rise in opposition to the rule and this unconscionable legislation. make no mistake if you support this bill you're voting to take food from the mouths of almost four million of our fellow citizens next year. who are these americans? nearly half of them are children. they're seniors. they are our veterans. one in every five veterans receive snap benefits. if this is the way we thank them for their service, mr. speaker, congress does not agree on much these days but i have always assumed we could at least support the idea that in this country, no child should go hungry. have we gone so far that we cannot even find bipartisan support for that? so, then we have truly lost our way. is this what my republican friends call compassionate
conservatism? i say to my colleagues, the whole nation is watching. you will be held accountable. vote no on this bill and the shameful underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to explain, if i can, compassionate conservative. it's 60 straight months of economic growth, of straight months of the country growing stronger because people had jobs. under republican house, under republican president, under republican senate. 60 straight months. of economic growth that made our country stronger and better. and that is compassionate conservatism. that's the republican party. we're trying to get back to job growth, job creation, and help the middle class in this country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i remind the jelled -- the gentleman that
compassionate conservatism also gave us the great recession. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reck -- mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to mr. hines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hines: i rise in opposition to this bill and -- to this rule and the underlying bill. 37-year-old formerly homeless veteran with three children who my office helped get on food stamps. i urge it on behalf of a semi dee iity to republicans, ronald reagan who said if there is one person in america that is hungry that is one too many. and i urge it on behalf of god. matthew does not say feed the hungry so long as you can do it with 100% efficiency.
luke does not say feed the hungry so long as you loosen environmental regulations. mr. speaker, this rule and this bill which is deeply, deeply flawed must not pass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: it's my privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding time and for devoting his entire political career to the idea of eradicating hunger in american society and around the world. an outstanding record of achievement, an outstanding record of compassion and today it runs into the republican reality. i know how you must feel, mr. mcgovern, of all these years of work to see them cavalierly
suggest they can cut $40 billion in nutrition benefits to families, to children, to working people, to people searching for work, and somehow nobody will lose their benefits. somehow they're not throwing anybody off the program. it's not that we said you're throwing people off the program. it's that the congressional udget office said that the $40 billion cut, some 3 ppt 8 million people would lose benefits and an average of three million people each year over the coming decade -- over the coming decade -- will lose their benefit. what does that mean? i specialize in education. i visit schools almost every week. i talk to teachers every day. they tell me about the fact that when children come there, they're nutritionally deprived, may not have had dinner, may not have had breakfast, they're not attentive in class, they fall asleep in class, they're irtable. and we're going -- irritable and we're going to cut benefits
to these children. yet we want these children to perform at a high level and they should be able to perform at a high level. we expect them to achieve in school. but that's not what this program is about. it's about cutting those benefits to children in need. it's about cutting benefits to these families in need. it's unconscionable that they would think that somehows the road to prosperity. you should get to the road by prosperity by attacking the most vulnerable in our society who are in desperate need of these nutritional benefits for their family. do they not know, the one in five children that live in homes experienced hunger on a regular basis, do they not know his or do they not care? somebody has to answer that question. because when this nation was shocked that they were going to cut $20 billion out of these nutritional benefits for these
struggling families and individuals, they came back and said, no, we're going to cut $40 billion. out of these benefits. what because they're angry? that the last measure didn't succeed? they're angry about what happened to the agriculture bill? is it anger that they're striking out at these families? it shouldn't be that way in this country, shouldn't be that way in this congress. these families are entitled to better. they're entitled to jobs, entitled to provide for their families. but some can't. that wonderful -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized. members are advised to abide by the rule -- ruling of the chair and the gavel. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: once again a speaker comes down that is
either unwilling or has not read a bill to understanding where the statement was made about preventing 280,000 children from receiving school lunch. nothing makes -- in in this bill makes changes to the school lunch program. the national school lunch program and school breakfast programs automatically qualify students who are enrolled in snap for free school meals. the school meals programs are not authorized under this bill nor eligible requirements under this committee's jurisdiction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: just to qualify something here. i want to respond to what the gentleman said, the fact of the matter is, when children's parents get cut from snap, the children are no longer eligible for free breakfast and lunch at school. that's where we we at the the number of 200,000 or something kids will lose their school lunches. it is connected. i point that out, i don't want
anyone to be fooled by the fact that somehow this doesn't affect school meals, it does, very directly. i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the draconian cuts to snap, a lifeline that millions of americans rely on. republicans want to slash $40 billion from snap and take food out of the mouths of millions of americans. these cuts will harm children, seniors, and others living in cities like memphis with high unemployment in the name of rooting out fraud. republicans see fraud and abuse in the snap program sometime bus seem to ignore billions of dollars of fraud and abuse at the pentagon. according to one estimate, hundreds of defense contractors have defrauded the u.s. military and taxpayers received more than $1.1 trillion in pentagon contracts in the past decade. where's the outrage from across the aisle and demand for
oversight of defense contractors? instead they're focusing on making it harder for families who are struggling to receive a little extra help. we need to find ways to reduce poverty in our communities, not cutting programs that work like snap. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has a minute and a half remaining. the gentleman reserves from texas, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: thank you. this republican let-them-starve bill would undermine what professors ferguson, baraski and harding described as a modern anti-poverty marvel. snap, they report, improves access to healthy meals for nearly one in three children. it reduces chronic illness and hospitalizations.
and significantly reduces poverty and the severity of poverty. it keeps kids healthier, happier and better prepared to do their best in school. and snap is one of the most efficient government programs with a rigorous application process, high rates of payment accuracy and low rates of misuse. about a penny on the dollar. the main limitation is not that it feeds too many, but that about 30% of those eligible get nothing. we cannot snap our fingers and snap away poverty. but this bill will snap a vital lifeline. it must be rejected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i oppose this legislation. much has been said this morning about how four million people will lose the safety net of food stamps.
this is going to derail the effort to pass a farm bill and america needs a farm bill. but you know, bottom line, this is a cynical piece of legislation. it is not about work. 68% of the folks on food stamps are women with kids. it's children, it's elderly, it's disabled. that's number one. number two. how is a person going to get into a nonexistent work program. work is great. it's not as though either side has a monopoly on the desirability of advocating for work. but when there's no work program for a person required to get stood famp -- food stamps to get into, they're denied food stamps and denied the opportunity to work, both. s that political statement, not a practical policy that will get us to where we need to be. it's going to throw people off of food stamps who need it, it creates a cynical -- nonexistent work program, it creates an incentive for states who are going to reap the
benefits of lower food stamp rolls to throw people off even further. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: it's my privilege to yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: mere heer we go again, social darwinism, survival of the fittest at its worse. cutting $40 billion, 3.8 llion americans thrown off supplemental nutritional assistance that works that gives them a ladder to success. children, the disabled, adults who find them 70's in a difficult -- themselves in a difficult period during a period of time. nine months is the average. don't do this. in a different congress,
different time, different issue, there was a famous lawyer who turned to joe mccarthy and said, at long last, sir, have you no decency? i ask that of this congress on this very important issue. have we no decency? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: my colleague just asked the question and i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. my colleague just asked the question about have we no decency, have you no decency? these are good friends here. we're cleegged. we come to work for america but all who can read and all who can feel the pain of hunger should ask the question and
should beg and plead, don't cut snap. $40 billion. 3.4 billion in meals and 24 meals a month for a family. unless you have the cure for poverty, 46 million americans, then how dare you come to the floor and eliminate a lifeline? yes, school breakfasts, but what about the children who are from zero to 3 to 4 who are home with parents, who are home with the families of spouses of active duty soldiers who use food stamps? and then the absolute insult, a state like texas that is prosperous, you give them the instruction to cut people off of food stamps and then give them a bonus, a bonus for hurting people and taking their life away. this is a shameful act. vote down this bill.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: could i ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has? mr. sessions: i am down just to the close and i thank the gentleman for seeking that information. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i close, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from -- letters from the united states conference of catholic bishops, the united states conference of mayors, aarp, and a list of a number of other groups who are opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and i'd also like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a september 4 "new york times" story entitled "on the edge of poverty: at the center of debate on food stamps." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself the remaining time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, in an era of billion-dollar defense overruns and bank bailouts, the republican leadership wants to nickel and dime poor people. this is a rotten thing to try to do, but it's not too late, mr. speaker. we can defeat this bill and still go to conference on the farm bill. we can defeat this bill and make it clear that the united states congress still has a conscience. we can defeat this bill and re-establish the long and proud tradition of bipartisanship on this issue. remember bob dole working with george mcgovern and bill emerson working with tony hall. we can defeat this bill and get back to the work of actually ending hunger in america rather than making hunger worse by passing a bill that cuts $40 billion out of this program and throws 3.8 million people off the program. and to suggest that this bill
won't hurt people, that it will not cut people from snap is just plain wrong. read the bill. read the bill. the 109-page bill that didn't go through committee that's before us under a closed rule, read the bill. this will impact not just people who are trying to look for work and can't find it, it will impact senior citizens. it will impact children, and it will impact veterans, 170,000 veterans will be cut from this program. shame on us if we do this. you know, i say to my colleagues on the republican side, i know, i know a lot of you believe as i do that it's important that we maintain a safety net for the most vulnerable. i know you believe that it's important that we should end hunger in america. i know you believe that it's wrong to cut $40 billion from this program. and i'd urge you and i'd plead with you, stand with us on this.
stand with us and reject this move, this harsh move, this tten thing to do to poor people. i think you will be proud of standing up against this bill. this is the wrong thing to do, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, do the right thing, let's do something in a bipartisan fashion that we could be proud of and defeating a $40 billion cut to the food stamp program is the right thing to do. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. today we follow the pattern that we did yesterday in talking about the needs of this great nation. not only men and women who are unemployed but who also need the benefits of the food stamp program. and today, the republican party , as a result of the work we did in the rules committee, is bringing several bills in this rule, two of them talking directly about jobs and job creation. one, hood river, oregon, the gentleman, greg walden, talking
about, please, give us a chance to have jobs. our people want jobs. they don't want to be on food stamps, they want jobs. narrow political shrill agenda, environmentalist agenda is the reason why we don't have, the democrats and barack obama. secondly, arizona, arizona is asking for 3,700 jobs, $60 billion worth of economic activity right in this bill. they are jobs bills. we are trying to do the things that the republican party talks about. that's the middle class of this country, jobs and job creation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule, yes for jobs, yes for the underlying legislation, yes so we can employ people back at home, rural areas, people who don't have jobs, yes for the opportunity for the republican party to once again stand on this floor and say we believe the legislation that is here is better for america than the policies that we have today.
the policies of unemployment, the policies of less than a 40-hour workweek now to a 30-hour workweek. the policies of taxes and spend. so i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution for jobs in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 55, house resolution 352, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution h.j. res. 59, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the joint resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution, as amended, are waived.
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the oint resolution, as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, it shall be in order at any time from the calendar day of september 26, 2013, through the calendar day of september 29, 2013, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 25. the speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the
purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from rochester, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: during the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes 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. mr. cole: mr. speaker, yesterday, the rules committee met and reported a rule for consideration for h.j.res. 59, the continuing appropriations resolution for the fiscal year 2014. the rule is a closed rule and provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution, keeping the government funded until december 15, 2013. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the committee on appropriations. additionally, the rule incorporates an amendment by
representative scalise, which fully defunds obamacare and also ensures that the government prioritizes interest and principal payments on our national debt and social security payments in the event that a debt limit is reached. the rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. finally, the rule permits the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules from september 26 to september 29. mr. speaker, i want to commend my friend, chairman rogers, for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the rules committee. within the republican conference, we've had a very spirited debate on this issue. however, it's led us to a good product. there are a number of things i like about this bill. first, it extends the funding for operations of all federal programs until december 15, allowing the appropriations committee the needed time to finish its work on the 12 full year spending bills. second, this continuing resolution adheres to the postsequester caps of the budget control act, maintaining
our commitment to reduce the deficit. third, this bill fully defunds obamacare. mr. speaker, it seems the closer we get to the implementation of the affordable care act, the more unpopular it becomes. already, the president has agreed with congress to make major changes to this legislation on seven different occasions. additionally, he's delayed major provisions, like the employer mandate, unilaterally. another seven times. if businesses chafing under these mandates and the need of a delay, then surely the american people should be given the same relief. the continuing resolution provides them that relief. finally, mr. speaker, this legislation provides certainty to our creditors that they will get paid. some of my friends on the other side have called this the, quote, pay china first act. however, nearly 70% of our debt is owed domestically. this legislation would provide for the prioritization of u.s. bondholders and people on social security at the front of the line to be paid if the
government its its borrowing limit. mr. speaker, this is the responsible thing to do. some have said this is just brinksmanship and an attempt by republicans to lead to a government shutdown. that could not be further from the truth. the appropriations committee has brought this bill to the floor explicitly to avoid the threat of a shutdown. it's a good bill, and i urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, mr. speaker, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. mr. speaker, if the house of representatives fails to act, the government will shut down on october 1. a government shutdown would result in the furlough of hundreds of thousands of government employees, stop the
flow of social security checks, hold up medicare benefits for our nation's seniors. in short, there are very real and very significant consequences to what we do here today. given the stage, one could reasonably expect the majority o avoid extreme partisanship and allow them to keep the government open but this bill doesn't do that. unfortunately, the opposite is happening here today. unable to past eight of the appropriations bills, the majority is forced to present a c.r. resolution and it should have been clean as it is in the senate. but today's proposal includes a self-executing amendment to defund the affordable care act and to put medical decisions back into the hands of the insurance companies and that will not go through the senate. so we will once again go to the very bripping of kiss as ter hoping that -- brink of disaster hoping we can pull out of it but letting most americans hang by
their thumbs wondering what we are going to do. as a newspaper in the hill wrote this morning, today's proposal makes shutdown more likely because the affordable care act will never be repealed as long as president obama is in office and the democrats control the senate. the fact of the matter is the affordable health care act is already delivering on its promise to lower health care costs and give us more secure health care. states are 11 days away from opening online health care exchanges where individuals will be able to compare health plans and purchase an insurance plan that fits their need. in many cases, the exchanges will allow individuals to purchase health insurance cheaper than ever before. in my home state of new york, the premiums for some insurance plans have already dropped by 50%, and this week secretary sebelius announced many monthly premiums will be less than $100. perhaps most importantly and
something i'm not sure everybody knows, the affordable care act flips the script and takes the power out of insurance company's hands. instead of having a lifetime and an annual cap on what the insurance company will spend on your health, the afoddable care act enforces limits on what you will have to pay out of pocket for your health care. now, does everybody know that? i'm telling you when your constituents find out they are going to be bummed out at you for trying to kill it. for example, in 2015 those covered under a group health insurance plan will not have to pay more than $6,350 out of their pocket for medical procedures and medicine. that is such a gift that people will no longer have to go bankrupt to pay health bills. and that point is going to be covered, from that point on, once you reach that limit your insurer will pick the rest of it up. i want to tell you right now that my constituents don't want to lose that.
it's a landmark change and one of many reasons why the majority's attempt at repeal would never become law. today's legislation falls short when it comes to ending the devastating cuts within what we call the sequester. the sequester has been one of the most devastating policies ever implemented in the history of the united states. just today the head of the f.b.i., the new director, said that the idea of having to get rid of 300 employees and putting all of these employees on 10-day furlough makes it almost impossible for him to run the f.b.i. because of the sequester tens of thousands of cancer screenings have been canceled at public health clinics right now. and more than $1.6 billion has been cut from the national institutes of health and more than 70,000 children have been kicked out of head start, and over the next 12 months the c.b.o. estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be lost
because of the economic drag caused by the sequester. last night the budget committee ranking member, the top member on the minority side, chris van hollen, came to the rules committee and requested to have a vote on the house floor in order to end the sequester. that was the eighth time that his request has been denied by the rules committee. given a chance for bipartisan cooperation and to rid ourselves of this plague that is so worrying and doing such devastation congress simply walked away. finally today's legislation also includes a proposal to protect some bondholders, including china, from any economic fallout that would occur if the majority refuses to lift the nation's debt. that legislation has no place in a continuing resolution and furthermore should not ever have been considered for the faith and credit of the united states should never been in doubt.
mr. speaker, every member of this house is sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states and to promote the general welfare and that's a far cry from what we are doing here today. not only in this bill but in the one just preceded us where we are cutting $40 billion out of food. it will affect as you heard before numerous veterans, elderly, meals on wheels, school nutrition. it's not what we are. not what we did. everybody knows that what is happening here today is what everybody mother knows. when a child has a tantrum and a tantrum is being had here over health care, you slap the pass five in the mouth. that's exactly what trying to redo the health care bill every time temporarily tan rum so that we can get by today. there is no real plan, it's just how will we get by today and take tomorrow? after the majority passes this
bill, the senate will take the legislation with the pure majority they can remove the partisan attacks within it, and they will send us back a clean c.r. if they can get 60 votes, which we will have to pass or chaos will ensue. by the time we get around to all this, which we could be doing today, well, we are right on the edge of the cliff. in the meantime, the majority's refusal to work on a balanced plan to create jobs, grow the economy, to invest in our future, which is such an important thing that's been neglected, and stop the drain brain being caused by the sequester, that hurts our economy and threatens the government shut down. with time running out this decision to play politics has dire consequences. think about it for just a moment, the reports that we have gotten with substandard bridges and roads and neglect of the railways, we could put all these people to work that would be needed to rebuild those and
spend money on ourselves instead of $2 billion a week on the war as we have been through iraq in 10 years. i urge my colleagues to vote against today's rule and underlying legislation and we then i hope would consider my partisan solutions instead of games. i could promise you that our side stands ready and willing. we have nothing to do with any of this today. it was -- came up, somebody else's office, no democrats were involved. we want to be a part of it as well. thank you very much, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: as usual my friend makes a skillful and thoughtful case in defense of the affordable care act. the problem is if the jury is the american people, they are still not convinced, and they haven't been convinced for four years. repeatedly poll after poll after poll has shown this to be an extraordinarily unpopular piece
of legislation. in fact i suggest my friends probably lost their majority in their pursuit of this legislation. it was their continued defense of it that may vell have cost them the opportunity to gain that majority when the president was re-elected. if you look at the evidence, it's not only unpopular as we approach the implementation date, more and more of the people that support it are asking either for a delay or nor it to be overturned all together. we have a lot of labor unions recently march down to the white house and request the president, these are people that helped pass the bill, please fix it, change it, delay it, do something. it's going to hurt the -- our members and their families. we have had businesses, the president himself acknowledged, gosh, this bill isn't working very well. we are going to have to delay it for a year for all sorts of businesses. we have been told repeatedly that this was someday going to become popular, but i suggest the experience of not weeks, not
months, but years have taught us it's never going to be popular with the american people. my good friend also talked a little bit about the sequester. i think that's worth visiting about again because we probably have some common ground there. i would suggest we ought to get rid of the see quester. let's remember how it got here, what it was designed to do. sequester is in law because of the president of the united states. he's the one who proposed it. he's the one who advocated for it. he's the one who signed it into law. we all agree it's not a very artfully drawn piece of legislation, but the president insisted on it. we twice in this house acted to provide opportunities to get rid of sequester. neither time did our friends on the other side pick up those opportunities either in this chamber or in the senate nor the president of the united states. we are more than willing to renegotiate sequester. we are not willing to give up the savings. we would like to spread those cuts and savings over the entire budget and we think we can work
through the problems without surrendering the savings unilaterally or raising taxes, another thing which we don't think is the appropriate way to deal with this particular piece of legislation. my friend talked about food stamps, not directly relevant for our debate, but it's worth thinking for a minute that under president bush the amount of money we spent on food stamps doubled. and under president obama it's doubled again. in other words, 100% and another 100%. all our bill is suggesting is perhaps there's 5% of that massive increase at a time when unemployment is coming down and the economy is supposedly on the mend, that we could through reforms reclaim and save. that's all this is. finally there was some discussion of the senate and what it will and won't do. i learned a long time ago not to try to predict what the senate of the united states is going to do. some of my colleagues, frankly on our side of the aisle, have been asking for an opportunity to express their opinion on
obamacare and have an opportunity to get in the fight. i think they ought to have that opportunity. and frankly i suspect there's some democratic senators who may be on the ballot for the first time since voting for obamacare that might want to reconsider their positions. it not defund perhaps delay. but in any event our job here is to do what the american people sent us here to do. that's number one, to fund the government. which this bill certainly does. and number two, in the case of the majority, to repeal, reform, delay, or somehow postpone obamacare. that's what we are doing. we'll send this over to the senate. we'll see what our colleagues can do over there. they have some remarkable tools we don't have. they have things lie cloture. doesn't exist on our side of the aisle. things like the filibuster doesn't exist over here. again a political situation that suggests they may be able to find allies. regardless they certainly deserve the opportunity to have the fight and the debate and the discussion that they requested. i think this house is acting wisely and well in giving them
that chance. once they have made their decision, and we are not here to express the will of the senate, they are certainly not there to express the will of the house, they'll send something back. at that time i have no doubt that we'll pick it up and react to it and try to respond in an appropriate fashion. but nothing is going to begin until he we pass something out of this house. that's what we are trying to do today. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. he gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on appropriations, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. today in : i rise strong opposition to this rule. last night the rules committee spent nearly three hours discussing the merits of health reform, food assistance in the farm bill, and u.s. debt held by foreign entities. yet very little time was devoted to one of the primary jobs of
the legislative branch which this bill addresses appropriating funds. this rule adds the provision to dictate to the president in what order to pay the nation's bills in case of default. and another provision to defund the affordable care act. the president issued a veto threat this morning based on these extraneous provisions. we should be focused as sharply as a laser beam on the american economy and jobs. this brinksmanship on the budget and the debt limit will force the stock market to plummet and businesses to freeze hiring. continuing sequestration as this bill does will cost our economy up to 1.6 million jobs over the next year, according to c.b.o. that is why i join my rules committee colleagues and urge
the house to reject the previous question to get a vote on the democratic amendment, to stop the sequester job loss. voting to add politically motivated provisions to this c.r. is akin to voting to shut down the government and shut down the government means shutting down the nation's economy. nonetheless, republicans place their ideological crusade against health care reform ahead of the american economy and jobs. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself a minute to respond quickly if i may. i want to assure my good friend we have no intention to shut down the government f that was our aim, we wouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor whose main purpose is to keep government funding open. we want to take the 75-day window, roughly, and sit down and negotiate with our friends and make sure particularly my friend and our chairman, mr. rogers, have an opportunity to work through the appropriations
process. so that's not our intention. the president's concern about sequester, again i remark this was his idea. this was his proposal. he signed it into law. he's not an innocent bystander in this process. if heed like to sit down and redo it, we are more than happy to do that, but he's not going to dictate the outcome from the white house. with that, mr. speaker, if i would i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my fell member of the rules committee, my classmate, distinguished physician from the great state of texas, mr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. burgess: i thank the the gentleman for yielding. we are here to discuss the rule that will allow the continuing resolution to come to the floor coupled with the continuing resolution is language that will forever affect the funding for what is known as the patient protect affordable care act. let us pause for a moment to remember how the patient protection and affordable care act was visited upon the united states of america.
this was not something of a product of a house hearing. this was a product of the senate finance committee developed between thanksgiving and christmas in 2009. put on the floor of the senate on what i'd like to describe the darkest evening of the year in a cloture vote, december 21, 2009, followed by a vote by the senate on christmas eve. many of you may remember that day. there was a snowstorm descending upon washington, d.c. the senators wanted to get home, they wanted to get out of town so they voted one after another until they got the 60 votes for the affordable care act and then left town under the cover of darkness. they never thought that what they were voting on on christmas eve, 2009, would ever become law. but a funny thing happened. a dog ate my home work and i turned in the rough draft and it accidentally got signed by
the president three months later and that's where we are today. that's why this law has been so difficult to implement. that's why the american people have never embraced this and now more recent polling in the past several days shows the american people actually reject what is being visited upon them. headline in "the wall street journal" yesterday, walgreens has told their employees, well, guess what, we are not going to pay for coverage any longer. we'll give you money. good luck in the exchanges. we'll see you on the other side. u.p.s. dropping family coverage. the unions wrote the minority leader in the house of representatives and the majority leader in the senate, please help us. we manned your phone banks, we walked neighborhoods for you. we got you elected. the administration is not listening to us. you have broken the contract with the middle class by voiding the 40-hour workweek by redefining full-time employment
as 30 hours, you've essentially broken the back of the middle class. the american people, regardless of political persuasion, are crying out for our help. and fortunately today and tomorrow we are going to be ble to provide them that help. we're frequently hearing about 40 or 41 votes to repeal the affordable care act. i'll tell you what, as many as it takes. but seven of those efforts to restrict and repeal portions of the affordable care act, seven of those have been passed by the senate and signed by the president. so it's not entirely a fruitless effort, but probably more telling is the president himself, who has whenever it suited him, simply jettisons a portion of the law, a law he signed in march of 2010. we all remember, those of us who were in the house at that time, those of us who watched news shows during the summer of
2009 and on into 2010, the cry that went out, we got to do something about with people with pre-existing conditions. there are far too many people in the country who are frozen out of the insurance market because of an unfortunate medical diagnosis. but the reality is the large group plans in this country have open enrollment periods so the pre-existing condition could he none drum generally -- conundrum is a problem for the individual and small group market. how do i know this, how do i know this number is much more manageable in the eight million to 10 million people than then-speaker pelosi and the president of the united states talked about? because on the ruling of the supreme court' decision on of the affordable care act, when i thought it was important for this house to respond to those who had the federal pre-existing condition program taken away from them by the supreme court action, i investigated how many people had been signed up in the so-called federal program, the number at that time was 65,000.
by the end of the year it was nearly 100,000. and then, mr. speaker, something really strange happened. on february 1 of this year, less than two years after the affordable care act was signed into law, people showing up at the teller's window over in the department of health and human services saying, i'd like to federal surance in the pre-existing pool they were told, sorry, if you're coming into today wanting that kind of help, so sorry. program -- program terminated. there were no headlines in that regard. there were no cries of anguish that the president has stopped providing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. you had people who were waiting the six-month waiting period required by law to wait and not have insurance to show up for this federal pre-existing pool. but what did they hear when they got fought window? sorry, sister, window's closed,
go somewhere else. 11 months from now you'll have full obamacare and maybe if you make it until then maybe you'll be fine. remember the discussion, we're going to put a cap on out-of-pocket expenses so no longer will people have to pay excessive co-pays and deductibles. oh, by the way, they postponed that for a year. that was supposed to start january 1, 2014. now it's put off until january 1, 2015. the small business health exchange supposed to open. competition in the small group market, was supposed to open january 1, 2014. delayed year to 2015. who can forget the tuesday evening before the fourth of july holiday this year when on a blog post valerie jarrett put out that the employer mandate was in fact suspended for a year? three days later, they had to say, oh, yea, bay the way, all those reporting requirements that we were requiring under the employer mandate, we're not
going to require those either. we're just going to trust people to tell us the truth when they come in to sign up for benefits, not that any other department administered by the department of health and human services never had fraud or misrepresentation. probably the most telling things is the lack of anyone within the agency to be able to answer a simple yes or no question about will the exchanges be open for enrollment on october 1. the head of the center for consumer information -- insurance information was here just this morning. i asked a question, just a simple yes or no is all that's required. i got a long answer, yes, there will be websites, yes, you'll be able to address websites. yes or no, will people go register for insurance on october 1?
they could not give me a yes or no answer. what if people are able to sign up for the insurance on january 1? yes or no, again, not able to give a yes or no answer to that question. will the president, will people be able to buy insurance cheaper as the president suggested when he was running for office? unable to answer with a simple yes or no answer. these are the problems we have, mr. speaker. we can't have people give us a simple direct answer to a simple direct question. no wonder people are full of questions about this, no wonder why they are full of fear about what's around the corner. this rule vote will allow the house to vote on a bill that keeps the government funded and open until december 15 of this year. but that vote very importantly allows people's voices to be heard that they do not trust what was quoted in the affordable care act.
they feel that the investment has been a bad investment so far, and they are telling us not one more dime, don't sink one more dime into this. i will yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm delighted to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on labor-hhs, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this cynical and reckless rule and the underlying funding bill. this is neither a serious nor a good-faith effort to address the fundamental responsibility in our budget. instead, the majority is trying to hamstring a government. they want it to be broken and they want to make it seem like it cannot address real
problems. and that is why now they are committed to pushing us headlong into a government shutdown whereby they would leave the american people on their own in what are difficult, difficult economic times. this real does not responsibly address our budget in any way. instead, the majority is using he resolution to ensure that they're dangerously low funding levels are the ceiling for future gudgetbugt negotiations and to try over the 40th time to thwart the law of the land and to derail the affordable care act which denies affordable health care to families. we passed the affordable care act in the house of representatives. we passed it in the united
states senate. the president signed the bill. the supreme court upheld the bill, but now this crowd wants to stop it by not providing the money to fund it and they want to repeal it. the american public says, don't repeal the affordable care act. don't do that. let's implement it and, yes, if there are fixes to be made, et's do that, because now, because right now children can no longer -- their parents can no longer be told by an nsurance company, we won't provide insurance coverage for your child that might have asthma or autism or anything else because regarded that in the past as a pre-existing condition. it is no longer a pre-existing condition. quite frankly what they want to
do is to turn your health care insurance coverage back to the insurance companies that can say no. i say to them, get over it. it's the law of the land. let's implement it and make the changes. while this majority plays games, the deep and dangerous, dangerous across-the-board cuts which they are trying to enshrine in this bill are threatening our economy, our health, our well-being and the future of american families. both the nonpartisan congressional budget office, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke argued that these across-the-board cuts will cost us as many as 750,000 job. that's not all. we got children -- will the gentlelady -- ms. slaughter: i'd like to yield another minute to the gentlelady. ms. delauro: more than 50,000 children losing access to early learning through head start. you can't make that up. when you've lost that head start slot, that child can't go to school, that early learning opportunity is done.
that is about the future of that youngster. they would cut off biomedical research that saves lives. i'm a cancer survivor. they would cut off the research that provides us with the opportunity to save people's lives in this nation. they cut money for the national institutes of health, the centers for disease control, the food and drug administration. they -- instructional services being sharply reduced. education cuts. there are similar cuts in place to every other national priority we care about. court system, food safety, transportation, you name it. and instead of fixing these cuts, the majority's trying to make it worse for american families. this resolution is not a serious attempt at addressing the budget. it is an ideological charade. its purpose is to shut down the government and to leave the american people on their own. i urge my colleagues to take no part of this and reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma.
mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to my great friend and the chairman of the rules committee, distinguished member from the great state of texas, mr. sessions, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank the young gentleman from oklahoma for his service, not only to the rules committee, but also the appropriations committee that he very aptly serves this honorable body well. mr. speaker, i'm not surprised that we're seeing the hysteria that we are. the people who are screaming the loudest are the people that ensured through no -- trust me, no other reason other than the things that they voted for, no unintended consequence to the -- have this country go from a $9 trillion to a $17 trillion deficit in just five short years. they made sure that this country has become unemployed, that we no longer really have careers. that there is not only hundreds
of waivers that have been given to the political friends of this president, uncertainty is all across this great nation about employment, people who want to sign the front of paychecks who want more employees, it is rampant across america of uncertainty and answers that cannot be given about this massive government-run health care plan that is getting ready to face this nation in just a few short weeks. that's why the republican party is on the floor of the house of representatives today. that's why we're here to say we're going to make sure this government gets funded, but the , of culprit of uncertainty hugely rising insurance and health care costs is the obamacare. it is not an affordable care act. and by the way, i think it works about the same way in moscow as it is in havana, it
is an out-of-control health care system that will diminish america's greatest health care system. so what we're here today is to join house republicans, mr. speaker, in our efforts to prevent obamacare from becoming reality. . since obamacare was proposed in the house in 2010, i and my republican colleagues, not just from north texas as you heard here dr. michael burgess, but people from oklahoma and across this country who stood firmly to say that we believe that our fight against the government health care run system is exactly what the american people want. my republican colleagues and i have in the house are doing everything we can to stop obamacare through voting, to repeal it, defund it, and to dismantle it. i am proud of that effort. obamacare is bad for jobs, it's bad for jobs all across this
country. that means it's bad for our economy. and it's bad for our nation's health care systems. doctors all across this country are united, as well as consumers, to say we must do something about it. up to 60% of americans today are worried about the quality of health care and how they will pay for this expensive product that democrats have brought to america. obamacare will jeopardize 3.2 million jobs across this country in the franchise industry alone. these are people that before had an opportunity to put food on their table that now are having to struggle to pay for this obamacare. additionally, hardly a week goes by that we do not hear stories about companies having to force their employees off their employee and off their preferred employer provider insurance.
president obama stood right in front of where you are, mr. speaker, just a few years ago and said that famous what has turned into a lie, if you have health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. that is not true. today we are learning this is not just the case with just a few people but also just effective yesterday walgreens has announced that they will move 160,000 of their employees off their current coverage. that is why republicans are on the floor of the house of representatives today. we are trying to pass the same message to our colleagues in the other body so that they are able to take the fight so that americans understand that we not only hear them but are willing to do something about it. i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma for yielding me time. and i end my speech today by
saying this, that republicans will continue to fight for jobs, better health care, and an opportunity for every single american to have a job to make this country even stronger. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me yield myself 30 seconds to say why i did not make federal case out of it here, i deeply regret my colleague has disparaged the president of the united states. mr. hoyer and i both wish i could give him an hour and 40 minutes to counteract what we have heard, but unfortunately i can only give him three, mr. hoyer, the gentleman from maryland, and the democratic whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: you know, i need to have an hour to correct so much misinformation, but i got to say something to my friend from texas who has now left the floor, or is about to leave the floor, just remind him, during the last 18 months of the bush administration we lost four llion -- 4 k. 491,000,000,
over the last 42 consecutive months, in the private sector, ,000. e gained 7,452 that my friend is an 11 1/2 turn around to the benefit of workers. have we done enough? we have not. perverse ak to this rule. let me first say to my friend mr. come -- cole, who like so many of his republican colleagues continues to say, the president signed this cloture bill. he did. why did he sign it? because our republican friend threatened as they are doing today to put the united states of america into default for the first time in history if he did not. that was the threat. it's the threat again today. mr. cole, my friend, would not really support that policy, i am
he' convinced. he doesn't have to have a colloquy with me, but he would not support that. the sequester, however, he did support. in the cut, cap, and balance bill that was totally voted on my republicans, a few less than my hand of democrats, who said that they wanted the sequester as the fallback position. they got it. they got it because that's the only deal they would make. the president doesn't want sequester. i don't want sequester. and the chairman of his committee doesn't want sequester. let me assert without undermining his credibility i don't think tom cole wants sequester. and by the way i have a quote here which indicates that eric cantor, the majority leader, so n't think sequester is hot, either. here's what hal rogers said, however, and i would like to debate this for some period of time, but i don't have the time. with this action we pulled the
transportation bill, the appropriation process is broken. irrelevant. dismissed. and by the way when they marked up their first three bills that they passed the house, they didn't use their sequester number. they used the number that the senate is marking to. because they knew their number doesn't work. their number that is included in the bill that would be the result of this rule. mr. cole, you're my friend and i have great respect for you and i think you believe that, but here's what hal rogers said, with this action, pulling the transportation bill, the house has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just three months ago. mr. rogers, conservative, kentucky, republican, chairman of the appropriations said, i believe the house has made its choice. sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end. can i get another --
ms. slaughter: absolutely. i hope i can give you two. mr. hoyer: i'll take another two minutes. he then went on to say, the house, senate, and white house must come together as soon as possible on a comprehensive compromise. this bill represents zero compromise. come together on a comprehensive compromise that repeals sequestration, takes the nation off this lurching path from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis, reduces our deficits and debt, and provides a realistic, realistic top line discretionary spending level to fund the government in a responsible and attainable way. i have been here for some period of time. i know about compromise. my side needs to compromise. there is no compromise yet on the other side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen. none. zero. and i say lamentively, i say
this with great sadness, in my view there are only about 60 on your side of the aisle who want this hardline approach, this unrealistic approach, that approach that the senator from north carolina who served in this house and on the appropriations committee said was unreasonable. now, let me tell you what one of the heritage foundation, chief executive of the heritage foundation said, we are pushing back these gimmicks. who was the gimmicks? mr. boehner and mr. cantor saying we'll pass it, we'll get a vote on health care, if they reject it we'll still fund government. your side wants to defund government. it may not want to shut the door on government once the defunded -- defund it badly and undermine our national security, economy, and operations of the government. and a member of -- every member of the appropriations committee knows that to be the case.
no member of the appropriations committee in my view, republican or democrat, believes that the sequester -- sequestration levels in this bill that this rule provides for are viable. they will not work. they will hurt americans. but what does michael needam say about these gimmicks and pursuing this? he says i think it's exciting. it's a game. it's a game that will hurt americans. reject this rule. reject this bill. let's have real compromise and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i know that bob woodward is a widely read author and i can look at the book sales that he racks up and know that there's a lot of people in this town that read what he has to say, evidently my friends on the other side have never read what
he had to say. let's be clear, sequester was the president's idea and proposal. where i agree with the president is that i think we need to save money in the federal budget. and sequester was supposed to be a trigger to force that negotiation. unfortunately for whatever reason i was not a member of the supercommittee, but i think all of them worked hard and in good faith. i cast no aspersions, but they didn't get there. so sequester, the president as recommended method happen. we would still like to sit down with the president and our friends on the other side and renegotiate where those cuts occur. sequester is about $85 billion on an annual basis in a $3.5 trillion budget that is over roughly $700 billion out of balance as it is. the idea we can't find 2 1/2% if we negotiated over the entire budget i think is probably frankly not very sustainable proposition. we could do that without some of
the distortions we are going through now and we would be more than happy to do that with my friends on the other side, and certainly with the president of the united states. i will yield in a moment. let's be clear whose idea this was. and who has not put a solution on the table. i can go ad nauseam into cuts that did not have to occur in the defense department that have occurred because the administration insisted on them. that for another time and debate. i agree with my friend that this is a time to come to a deal. and that's what we are trying to do actually in this rule and in the underlying legislation. setaside a 75-day window and sit down and let the appropriators and those above them come to an agreement and let's get out of this cycle. i agree with my friend of short-term fixes and deals. let's move back to what i know my friend wants to do and that's to establish regular order. but to do that we have to start
the process. we have to begin now. let's pass this resolution. it reflects the will of the majority. let's move it to the senate. see what the senate is prepared to do. they will send us something back. and then hopefully at the end of that process a c.r. will be arrived at. my friend alluded to the fact that people want to shut down the government. that's the last thing we want to do. i thank my friend for accurately putting my position out there on both government shut down and default. i made it abundantly clear. i think those are bad ideas. i thought they were bad ideas by the way, tom coburn quotes me in the book in 1995 telling them not to do it. i was his political consultant back then. i never thought this was an appropriate tactic in government. let's do that and at the same time let's give the senate and opportunity to vote up or down whatever they want to do on obamacare. it multipleen to do times. they seem to be anxious to have the opportunity. i think they should. they'll send us back a product and we'll respond.
i'll give my friend if he wanted to make a point. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. not only have i read bob woodward's book, i have invited him into my office and we discussed this assertion that you and others like to refer to ad nauseam, very frankly, does the gentleman agree that before that was ever suggested by jack lew to harry reid as a possible way to getting us not to default on our debt, that you and the overwhelming majority, all but eight of your colleagues, voted for your cut, cap, and balance bill which had within it in july of 2011 a sequester. so that this was a proposal you put in legislation -- mr. cole: reclaiming my time, it's certainly true we have had try to proposals to limit spending. we walked in on a 1.4 trillion defendant deficit.
we thought we should bring it down. is it the exact form of this sequester? absolutely not. absolutely not. no republican ever came up with the sequester that had 50% of the cuts coming outs of defense. in that sense i don't think you can equate them, but regardless, rhett's not argue over history here for a minute, although again just for the record i, too, had bob woodward in my office and had him sign 60 of those books i gave to my colleagues because i thought it was an interesting look and the players and process are still the same. bottom line, let's pass this legislation, going to move out of the house, let the senate act, then let's see what they send back to us and -- quickly, i'm running low on time. mr. hoyer: does the gentleman agree the se quester is irrational. mr. cole: i wouldn't agree if it yields the cuts but i think the structure is inappropriate an flawed. we ought to repeal it and get savings across the entire
budget. i think that's what we should co-. -- should do. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady from new york. >> i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. an drusmse the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i have not had bob woodward in my office but i have had in my office a guy who builds kitchens for -- cabinet farce living and he says the economy may be getter better but it's not where it needs to be. i believe the country is putting the country on a perilous path to a government shutdown with this sthrofmente government shutdown is bad enough, it's bad enough that on october 1, i think it's now likely that people who inspect our food, people who now help pursue criminals at the f.b.i.,
people who run our national guard armories, won't be showing up for work because the government shutdown, that's bath bad enough. but the problem here is not just a government shutdown, it's a shutdown of the economy. that's what this causes. the way the american economy works is when that person at the usda or the f.b.i. gets a paycheck, they go out and have their kitchen remodeled. and the kitch el -- kitchen remodeler is more likely to buy a house -- a house so the real estate broker is more likely toshe commission, so she's more likely to buy a car an the car salesman is more likely to earn his commission, he's more likely to buy a refrigerator and the person running the appliance store is more likely to hire people to the store, more truck drivers have jobs delivering appliances and on it goes. or on it doesn't go. when the sequester was locked new york the economists in the
country predicted a third of the economic growth wouldn't happen. they were right. when the latest growth figures came out, instead of growing at about 2.5%, the economy grew at 1.7%. it's not a mystery as to why. the problem here is not simply the government shutdown. it's the shutdown of the economy that this represents. this bill will probably pass the house. it will not pass the senate. it represents an obsession with the health care law rather than good faith negotiations. we should begin those good faith negotiations right now. we should have on the floor right now a proposal of mr. -- a proposal mr. van hollen has made for a long time that says let's get rid of the sequester for a long time, let's not lay off the person at the national guard armory or the f.b.i. or the usda and let's replace the spending cuts with a fair and honest set of proposals that
would include things like taking tax breaks away from oil companies who are making billions of dollars a year. year not getting a chance to vote on that today. or tomorrow. and i suspect i know the reason why. because it would pass. it would keep the government running, it would further reduce the deficit, it would put more americans back to work but it doesn't fit the political script of the majority. vote no on the rule, no on the bill, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would advise members the gentleman from oklahoma has two and a half minutes remaining, gentlelady from new york has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. cole: mr. speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have wondered where the business community is on this issue, i'd like to insert for the record a letter from the u.s. chamber of commerce that notice as the large -- that notes, as the world's
largest business association it 59 to assage of h.j. provide uninterrupted government funding into next year and defund obamacare. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter feather if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to finally let the house vote on mr. van hollen's proposal to replace the sequester with the balanced deficit reduction plan that bipartisan panels of experts best plan. the i yield four minutes to the gentleman to explain his proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, it's reckless for our republican colleagues to say they will shut down the united
states government unless we shut down the affordable care act. a law which is already providing protexts to millions of children in this country who have pre-existing conditions like asthma, like pediatric cancer, like die bee teerks and millions of seniors on medicare who have high drug costs. but what's also irresponsible and undemocratic is that the republican majority has refused to allow us even a vote on a plan to replace the sequester. hat's the se quest her the sequester is washington speak for a job-killing mechanism. it's a meat ax, immediate, across the board cuts doing damage to our economy. you don't have to take my word for it. the independent, nonpartisan congressional budget office, the referee around here, says we at this time next year, could have up to 1.6 fewer jobs
in this country as a result of that sequester. by this time next year, we could see economic growth cut in half. as a result of the sequester. look, the good news is the economy is growing. the bad news is it's going -- growing very slowly. the last thing the american people need is a self-inflicted wound by this congress that slows down the economy and puts fewer people back to work. but that's what the sequester does. we should do something about it which is why the democrats have a proposal to replace it, to replace it with targeted cuts other a period of time and as mr. andrews said, targeted cuts to big tax breaks like oil subsidies. and if you do that, you eliminate the bad parts of the sequester but get the deficit reduction part new york fact, our plan would give you even more deficit reduction during the period of this plan. we've tried eight times now to get a vote on that.
just a vote. in this house the so-called people's house we haven't been able to give it a vote. i hear our republican colleagues say they don't like the sequester, i hear them say that to their constituents. what they don't tell them is they denied us a vote on the chance to replace sessque even times and guess what else they don't tell us. how many times in this congress have our republican colleagues put a plan on this floor to replace the sequester. zero. zero times. now, mr. cole i have to correct you, we have a concrete plan to replace the sequester for 2014. it's right here. we'd like a vote on that plan, mr. speaker. we'd like a vote. we think members should be held accountable when they go back home and tell their constituents they want to get rid of the sequester and come here to the united states congress and deny us an opportunity to have that vote. deny the people of this country the right of accountability for
their members of congress. so let's take an action today, let's vote no on the previous question, and then this house can have chance to vote on our plan to replace the sequester, get rid of the drag on the economy is going to cost us up to 1.6 million jobs. that's democracy. that's letting this house work its will. and what i'm afraid of, mr. speaker, is that our colleagues are afraid to have that vote in the light of day. there's no other explanation for why they'd be denying the american people that opportunity. so what i ask is, either say you really do like the sequester you support the sequester, don't mind the jobs being lost as a result of the sequester, either say that to your constituents or vote for our sequester replacement or at least come to the floor of this house with one of your own. because right now we've tried eight times for a vote and our republican colleagues have tried zero times in this
congress to replace that sequester. so we ask that you vote against the previous question, give the american people the chance to hold us accountable for what we say at home, hold us accountable right here in the halls of this chamber. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire of my -- if my colleague has more speakers? if not, i'm ready to close. mr. cole: i'm prepared to close whenever my colleague would like to do that. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. coal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. -- ms. slaughter: today the majority wishes to bring a proposal to the floor that would defund obamacare, their favorite, and prioritize bond payments to china in the event of financial default this type of legislative maneuver unnecessarily injects partisanship in politics where it does not belong.
time is running out on the fiscal year, we have to put politics aside and come together to keep the government open and serving the american people. to that end, i want to state to all my colleagues in their offices, wherever they may be, who are preparing to come over and vote, this vote on this previous question may be one of the most important votes that you have ever taken. all of us, while we are at home in our district work period, heard over and over and other again from business people from hospitals, from schools, everybody, that the sequester was ruining them. we have visited this plague upon them and we can take it away. we can do it now. i remind you that the c.r. continues the sequester. let's take this opportunity we have now with this previous question and everybody vote no on it on both sides. please. so the simple thing will happen here is they we can vote. mr. van hollen's proposal -- on
mr. van hollen's proposal he just explained. it not only replaces the money the sequester would have cut but we get more deficit reduction from mr. van hollen's proposal than from sequester. every one of us who fails to vote no so we can do that which is the least of our responsibilities here, ought to have to explain to every -- explain it every single day to our constituents as to why we did not want to remove that awful burden which we inflicted. i'm sure that every one of us, i'm certainly guilty of it myself, told my constituents back home that the house would never do that. it was too dumb to be believed. but no, now that we've done it, we like it. because you don't see the consequences. when dr. francis collins, the head of the n.i.h., says we're losing our scientists, we're losing our research edge, as we know we're falling further and further behind -- behind in
education, in jobs, in the future of this country, we fail to invest anything in our future. we are living with crumbling roads, crumbling infrastructure, everything around us, but the uncertainty overrides it all. what does this mean for me. will i get to keep my quob? how can i run the f.b.i. when people are out on furlough? why in the world would we put our people through this disgraceful charade here simply because we made a mistake. we have an opportunity now by voting no on the previous question that will simply allow mr. van hol ton get a vote on his measure. for heaven's sakes, please do that. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i urge everybody to vote no. i want you to vote no, mr.
speaker. i urge a no vote on this rule. the underlying bill is not as important to me as getting the sequester out of the way. vote no on this at least. whatever you do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i don't want to put you under any pressure but we're counting on you. i want to thank my good friend, the gentlelady, it's a great opportunity to come down here and exchange views with her. i want to answer quickly, make a couple of points in closing. first, remember, we did bring down legislation and passed it out of this house to deal with sequester twice. democrats in the senate didn't pick it up, the president didn't pick it up. my friend, mr. van hollen, frankly, your legislation hasn't made it out of committee. you've got to get it out of committee before it comes to the floor. so far, as persuasive as you are, you have not been that persuasive.
mr. van hollen: will the gentleman yield? mr. cole: if i have time i will. this bill keeps the government open. it's not about shutting down the government. it's keeping it open so we can negotiate and arrive at a larger deal. we intend to send this to the senate with the defunding of obamacare, something the majority of this house feels strongly about and then we'll wait and see what the senate sends back taos my guess is at the end of the day, you never know what's going to happen over there. maybe i won't make a guess, we'll just let them see what comes back. i want to give my friends over there the opportunity to carry this fight. with that, if i have any time left, let me give toyota my friend. mr. van hollen: i want to point out, in a new congress all the legislation considered the previous congress goes away and in this congress we have not had one concrete proposal from our republican colleagues. mr. cole: reclaiming my time. after you turned us down twice, we think you're an awfully hard sell.
i didn't yield any further time. the senate is also a difficult sell on this. let's move and do the c.r., sit down in the next 75 days -- days, i think we have an opportunity to come to a large deal to deal with sequester, we could deal with the long-term deficit we know is a huge problem for us and we could move forward i hope in a bipartisan manner. this is our opportunity to do it. let's pass this rule, pass this bill and get to work. with that, i yield back, mr. speaker, the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. . the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passing the continuing resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have. it ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule 20, this vote will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 352
if ordered and adoption of house resolution 351. this is a 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question. [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.]
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: on that, i request the yeas and nays. sproys those in support of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 .s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230, the nays are 192. the majority voding -- voting in thify the gentleman is recognized for one minutetive, the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on house resolution 351 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill -- title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 54. house resolution 53 -- 351. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 687, to facilitate the extraction of mineral resources in southeast arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of federal and nonfederal land and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1526, to restore employment and educational opportunities in and improve the economic stability of counties containing national forest
system land, while also reducing forest service management costs, by ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from national forest system land, to provide a temporary extension of the secure rural schools and communities self-determination act of 2000 and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3102, to amend the food and nutrition act of 2008 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 epresentatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231, the nays are 193. the majority voding -- voting in the affirmative, the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will remove their
onversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to h.r. 351, i call up the bill h.r. 3102 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3102, a bill to amend the food and nutrition act f 2008 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.
members remove conversations from the floor. those in the rear of the chamber . those in the well ou're making a lot of noise. pursuant to house resolution 35 1, the bill is considered read, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3102. the nutrition reform and work opportunity act of 2013. as we all know in july, the house passed a farm bill, farm bill only. this legislation did not include
title 4 which consists of the nutrition programs, including the supplemental nutrition assistance program or snap. since that time, our leader, cantor, has put together a working group of which i was a part to create a bill that better targets federal nutrition programs to serve those in need of assistance. h.r. 32 -- 3102 is the bipartisan of that effort -- byproduct of that effort. before i highlight its provisions, let me take a moment to say what we all know to be true. there's no denying that snap provides important support for many americans who are struggling. it servings a noble purpose to help you -- it serves a noble purpose to help you when you hit bottom but it's not meant to keep you at the bottom and that's why it's important we ensure the integrity of the program so it's working in the most effective and efficient way. that it works to get you back up on your feet. now, let me highlight some of the provisions that make this
possible. first, it incorporates all of the savings and reforms that are in h.r. 1947, that was favorably reported by the house agriculture committee in a large bipartisan vote. h.r. 1947 saved more than $20 billion by eliminating categorical eligibility, to ensure that states are enforcing the asset and income test in snap law. . it closed the heat and eat loophole to prevent stale states from sending $1 liheap checks to snap recipients to artificially increase their benefit levels. it stopped giving officials bonuses for administering the snap program, which is their job. it restricted the department of agriculture from advertising snap on radio and television shows such as soap operas.
the bill we are considering today also incorporate maryland reforms adopted on the floor when the house considered h.r. 1947 in june. and finally, the efforts of the working group, this bill includes additional reforms that eliminates a state's ability to waive the current work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents. it encourages employment and train big providing cost share funds to states that adopt provisions under a new work pilot program and it increases funding for food banks which have been successful in effectively utilizing government dollars and securing private sector donations in order to feed hungry americans. ultimately this bill encourages and enables work participation and makes commonsense reforms, closes program loopholes and eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse in the snap program, saving the american taxpayer nearly $40 billion.
i will admit to you, this has been an unusual process. but it remain misgoal to get a five-year farm bill enacted. i'm doing everything possible to make sure that that happen this is year. this is a step toward that goal. it is my hope that we'll pass this bill so the farm bill process will continue. we have a responsibility to get this done. and quite simply, and i repeat, quite simply, it shouldn't be this hard to pass a bill that ensures all of us in this economy have enough to eat. that's what a farm bill does. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so the process can continue. with that, madam speaker, i
reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. he gentlelady from ohio. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. fudge: why are we here today? the original farm bill passed out of the agriculture committee passed out of committee with bipartisan support. while this bill died when it came to the floor, i have to thank the leader and ranking member for their desire to work together for the goofed the american people. today's exercise is nothing more than a waste of our time and an insult to every american in need. the bill contains the same toxic amendments that derailed the farm bill the first time around. it makes me question whether
the republicans want a farm bill. bill says to senior citizens and the poor and disabled, you do not matter. i hear the stories from my constituents who struggle on whether to pay for medicine or food because they can't afford both. snap recipients will already see a reduction in their benefits beginning november 1 when the temporary 2009 recovery act temporary benefit ends. it will be reduced by as much as $300 a year for some people. that's a staggering amount. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at snap purely from a dollars and cents standpoint. earlier this year i participated in a panel on poverty. one of the young ladies from witnesses to hunger said, people do a lot of talking about us.
they refer to snap beneficiaries as statistics. but i'm not a statistic. i am a real person, struggling to get by. this bill would abandon 5.7 million people during the time when they need us the most. no one can justify a bill of $40 billion in cuts when 47% of all snap recipients are children under the age of 18 and i cannot justify such cuts when 16 ppt 5% of all snap households include seniors this bill is more than a sucker punch. to those in need it may be their fatal blow. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. -- >> i rise for purpose of a colloquy with mr. ronellers. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, thank you for this, i thank you for
working to include important reforms to the snap program in this bill. however some concerns have been benefits arding the to veterans who rely on snap benefits. while the reforms in this bill are important i believe they'll have unintended consequences for our returns veterans. live terans returning may -- near ptsd. en they have a north of 9% unemployment rate. i ask the chairman to to commit to working with me in conference to include language ensuring veterans remain proteched in the future the way they're protected today. while this would not impact a large number of soldier, sailors and marines, it would have a huge impact on the
confidence of our service members have in our government to keep our promise to them. and that promise is when you put your life on the line for the united states of america, you will have the support, especially in these difficult economic times, of the people of the united states. our nation's veterans have sacrificed for this country and it isest herbally -- especially important that in difficult times they have this support. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> as the gentleman knows, congress is committed to making sure our veterans have the support they need after their hill tear service. mr. lucas: this house led by ssing our hire heroes act, a program to retrain veterans to make them more competitive
today's job mark. i'm pleased the senate followed our lead and passed the act and it is now law. this bill doesn't target veterans. though i understand the concerns you have raised today, as long as our veterans meet the needs, complies with applicable work rirptes he or she will can't to receive nutrition benefits and veterans who have a physical or mental disability are exempt from work requirements. they're also -- there are also numerous federal job training programs and education programs specifically targeted veterans that spend over $10 billion a year to ensure our veterans can get back to work. additionally we currently provide up to 73 weeks of unemployment benefits for veterans in our highest unemployment states. even so, i know i speak for the entire ag committee when i see we're committed to protecting our veterans in a way that honors their service and sacrifice to our nation ain look forward to working with the wrelt to make sure the
final conference committee greement does just that. i yield the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. conway: i rise in support of the nutrition reform and work opportunity act. we have the chance to pass a bill that makes the greatest reform to snap than when the bill was introduced. opposing this bill is a vote for the status quo in washington. our goal in this process has not been to take millions off of food stamp bus restore the integrity of the program and ensure the safety net is preserved for the families most in need. the arguments you'll hear from the other side of the aisle are just theatrics. if you listen to them out of context, you'll assume we're destroying or eliminating the entire snap program but we are
not. we are committed to finding solutions that work with resources we actually have. today we have an opportunity to modernize the nutrition program, to close loopholes and to most importantly keep the safety net intact for qualified american families who depend on this assistance every day. this bill rids nutrition policy of provisions that have weakened the system. it will seek to limit the public assistance program to those who qualify and close loophole that was been used to game the season. it will create an efficient and effective program for those who need it. it gives people the tools to become receive self-sufficient, fine work and make a better life for themselves and their chern. it informs nutrition policy and returns accountability to the food stamp program and yes, madam speaker, it does reduce spending. i urbling my colleagues to vote yes and yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: thank you, madam speaker. let me just say i find it not theatrics that 5,000 active duty families would be kicked
off of food stamps if this bill passes as it is given to us today. madam speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield to our assistant democratic leader, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3102. the latest attempt by the republican majority to add more insults to the injuries that have been inflicted upon the working families making their lives much more difficult. it has become clear to me that some of my colleagues on the other side either don't believe or don't care that they are -- that their preferred policies would make the poor, poorer and the hungry, hungrier. they seem unmoved by the arguments of many, including former senate majority leader and presidential -- republican presidential nominee bob dole,
that this bill would make it more difficult for millions of americans to feed themselves and their families. for the last half century, the farm bill has always included both agricultural subsidies and nutrition assistance. this combination makes a lot of sense. every time the e.b.t. card swiped, farmers large and small, grocers, national chains, an local mom and pop stores and banks, wall treat and main street, all benefit. for american farmers and agribusiness industries to succeed, they need customers to purchase the food they produce. with the comprehensive nature of past farm bills, it is no surprise that 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance, energy,
and crop insurance groups oppose the republican leadership's cynical ploy to accept brate -- separate nutrition assistance from the rest of the farm bill. we talk about how snap benefits go to individuals. but if the truth be told, the real beneficiaries are local communities and enterprises. my republican colleagues claim to be big supporters of small businesses. but you can't support small businesses if you don't support their customers. this ill-advised legislation would also hurt businesses that have nothing to do with food. in my district, the average household income among snap employees, snap recipients, is less than $15,000 a year. if these low income people lose access to nutrition assistance, money they would otherwise spend on other needs would be
spent instead on food, taking customers away from other businesses throughout our economy. out of a job, supermarket workers will have less money to spend. less demand means fewer jobs. an analysis by the department of agriculture of similar snap cuts last year found that more than 50,000 jobs would be affected. snap funding is crucial to our economy because those dollars go directly into the local economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clyburn: thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, one and a half minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crawford: i rise in support of h.r. 3102, the nutrition
reform and work opportunity act, it takes a significant ep in reforming the food stamp program by helping those who need it and holding accountable those who can help themselves. the government continues to turn a blind eye to sam fraught ith abuse. this will make sure people are not made eligible by sending a tanf card. as another arkansasian said when he signed the bill into law, we are making welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life resmforls in this bill will give people a second chance by ensuring food stamps will be there when people fall on hard
times but supporting training programs to able bodied americans can get back to work. it puts an end to institutional abuses that threaten its future viability. we can't continue to provide assistance to the poor if we allow abuse in the bankrupt food stamp system. i support this legislation to return integrity to the program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: let me just say that the first district of arkansas which my colleague represents has a snap recipient percentage of 18.2%. i am pleased to yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mcmcthank you, madam speaker. on monday i visit -- mcmcthank you, madam speaker. on -- mr. mcintyre: it's clear that a healthy mind and a
healthy body means a healthy work force and a more productive economy. in may the agriculture committee passed a bipartisan farm bill with reforms to nutrition that would have saved almost $40 billion. that bill was defeated and now we're considering a bill with serious ramifications that have proposed cuts that are not bipartisan and that go way too far. it will take away food from children, from seniors, from veterans and military families. our children are our future and ensuring their access to healthy meals at school and at home is critical. the great estrogen ration paid our path to prosperity. how dare we not honor our seniors and take food from them on their tables. and, third, those who serve in our military, we should keep our promises and make sure they and their families and our veterans do not go hungry. as one who has worked with both sides of the aisle, i implore my colleagues to oppose this bill, work together, find a bipartisan, commonsense hoo solution that stays true -- solution that stays true to our
nation's commitments, to our children, our seniors, our veterans and our military families. for i was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3102 . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from iowa, the primary subcommittee chairman on this important issue, mr. king, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i thank charityman for yielding me time. and -- chairman for yielding me time. and i rise in support of h.r. 3102. and i'd like to explain my position with this bit of a narrative, when i came into this congress a little over a decade ago i was watching the growth in the nutrition program, the food stamp program, and i'm well aware that it was established to try to put an end to malnutrition in america.
now, it was growing too fast for me at that time, at that time there were 19 million americans that were on the food stamp program. by 2008 there were then 28.2 million americans on the program. the cost in 2003 was about $25 million. the cost in 2008 was $37.6 -- excuse me, billion, $25 billion in 2003, $37.6 billion in 2008. with 28.2 million people on food stamps. today our number is knocking on the door of $47 -- of 47 million people from 19 million to 47 million people, from $25 billion to $78.4 billion. and we're watching an administration that's been advancing the expansion and the signup of the nutrition program by spending millions of dollars of advertising to get more people to sign up and hiring people to go out and recruit people to sign up for more foods. and i've listened to the -- food stamps. and i've listened to the testimony that said that food insecurity is now the reason, a
reason for obesity in america. that people have insecurity about where some of their future meals might come from, therefore they tend to overseat when -- overeat when they do get food. we can help solve this obesity problem by giving an unlimited supply of food stamps to people, then we'll somehow get thinner. this has been turned around on its head from a problem of malnutrition to a problem of obesity. all tried by democrats to solve with the same solution, which is more and more spending into a program. there won't be people taken off of this. there won't be food coming out of the mouths of babes. this is categorical. this is so that the resources are available to the people that need it. those that are truly hungry. and by the way, this remark that it is a cynical ploy i completely disagree with. this is a sincere effort to manage our budget and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: thank you so very much, madam speaker. i just want to say to the ranking member on the
subcommittee, that -- subcommittee that oversees snap, that has not called a meeting all year, that he has a 10% snap recipients in his district. i am pleased to yield to another of my fellow subcommittee ranking members on the agriculture committee, and a member of the congressional hispanic caucus, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: madam speaker, i thank the gentlewoman. i rise today in strong opposition to this irresponsible nutritional bill. should these cuts take effect, hundreds of thousands of californians in need will lose access to a very important life line. this would include one of my constituents. a mother of two who works 33 hours a week and goes to school part-time in hopes of becoming a teacher to get out of this network, this lifeline that she's presently in. for her the working poor, and in
many cases some of the most vulnerable veterans across our country, snap is a hand up, not a handout. it is a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle. as we emerged from the grea -- emerge from the great recession, now is not the time to play politics with hunger. we are also a nation that has a cute duthy to fight hunger around -- duty to fight hunger across our homes. former president reagan maybe stayed best. as long as there's one person in this country who is hungry, that's one person too many. let's do the right thing. vote no on this bill and fix it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rodney davis, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague for yielding time. madam speaker, i rise today in support of the nutrition reform and work opportunity act. the unfortunate reality is that
one in seven people in this country are on food stamps. spending on the program has doubled since 2008 and the number of americans on snap has doubled since 2003. just as i believe that we must take care of fellow americans who truly need the help, i also believe that we must address fraud and abuse in the snap program and provide opportunities and encouragement to put people back to work. when unemployment declines, the number of food stamp recipients still increases under our current system. this is simply unsustainable. it's time for some real change. this bill enforces the work requirements of able-bodied adults without dependents, similar to the reforms in bill clinton's 1996 bipartisan welfare reform bill. it eliminates taxpayer funded advocacy campaigns, closes the loophole, eliminates categorical eligibility to ensure program integrity and end state bonuses for administering the program. i also support the work in job
training requirements in this bill. these programs offer real work skills, investing in these skills will make individuals more marketable in the workplace. i've introduced a bill on the same topic called the opportunity knocks act. it's going to encourage americans to take job training courses while still being able to keep their unemployment benefits. these types of initiatives put americans back to work. most important step we can take to help those 47 million americans on snap is to grow our economy and promote opportunities to put our family, friends and neighbors back to work. the farm bill is a jobs bill. let's move the process forward and support these reforms so that the taxpayer dollars are spent much more wisely. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate my colleague, but job training is great, but there is nothing in this bill that assures any money will go toward job training. and i also want to say that in mr. davis' district, 12.8% of his residents are on snap.
madam speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to one of my colleagues on the agriculture committee, the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. dell bennie, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: thank you, madam speaker. we're debating an extreme bill with no chance of becoming law when we could be weeks into conferencing a farm bill. snap has prevented millions from falling into poverty. in the western part of washington state, 690,000 people are still experiencing hunger. and we should not be arbitrarily cutting off aid. this bill would force states to cut off people struggling to find a job, also stripping them of transportation and child care assistance. if states don't comply, they lose funds for the snap employment and training programs like the model program we have in washington state that has led many to self-sufficiency. even at the height of the recession, 60% in washington's programs found employment and more than half were off assistance two years after the
program. house leadership says this bill will lead to more people working. but how does cutting programs proven to help people find jobs accomplish this? all this bill does is cut the lifeline for 3.8 million hungry american families, children, veterans and seniors. this is not a serious proposal. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from colorado, mr. kauffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is ecognized. mr. coffman: i rise to engage in a colloquy with chairman lucas. colorado has been a leader in training freshman programs and want to ensure when passing this supplemental nutrition sistance program reform bill that the reform is for states to
receive federal funds are done and away, that encourages states to be active in helping individuals become self-sufficient. to clarify, i would like to work with the chairman to make sure federal dollars are available to states like colorado who actively move people to self-sufficiency. mr. lucas: i am aware of the leadership of colorado in this area. i look forward to working with the gentleman from colorado as we move forward with this legislation to ensure that federal dollars are available to states that have -- that actively move people to self-sufficiency. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. fudge: thank you. yes, colorado has been a leader but the bill specifically gives states the ability to spend savings any way they choose. madam speaker, i am happy to yield to another one of my colleagues on the agriculture committee, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. any great mcleod, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. negrete mcleod: thank you, madam speaker. i strongly oppose the proposed cuts. as a member of the agriculture committee, i am greatly concerned that this is a $39 billion cut to our nation's most powerful antipoverty tool. the tool because each month snap helps feed 3.4 million households with elderly individuals. in 2011, 4.8 million americans over the age of 60 lacked access to food. some seniors are already making the decision between food or their medicine. cuts to snap will only intensify the problem. sending seniors into deeper destitution and hunger. i ask the bill's supporters, how will these americans eat without the means to afford food? i urge my colleagues to remember the most vulnerable constituents in their states and to vote no on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from north dakota, congressman cramer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: thank you, madam speaker. mr. chairman, i don't question the sin certificatesy of our -- sincerity of our democrat colleagues' desire to feed the truly needy. i share in that commitment. but i resent the idea that somehow asking able-body idea adults to at least be working for -- looking for work as a requirement to receive these benefits is somehow immoral. when did america trade the dignity of a job for a culture of dependency? president roosevelt writes in his autograph biography as a rancher. in chapter four he writes, we knew toil and hardship, hunger thirst.
but we felt the beat of the hardy life in our veins because ours was the glory of work and the joy of living. madam speaker, i say, let's encourage the dignity of work again and pass these modest reforms and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio. fugefuge -- ms. fudge: i thank you. i want to say to my friend that able-body idea work has always been in the farm bill. what is changed by this bill is that it takes away the opportunities for governors to request a waiver when their unemployment rate is very high. madam speaker, i now yield one minute to another member of the agriculture committee, the gentlewoman from new mexico, mrs. lujan grisham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lujan grisham: thank you to my colleague from ohio and thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this disastrous bill that $40 billion from snap. a vital program that feeds over 442,000 new mexicans, half of whom are children. i want to share the story of lanai havens. lanai is a single mother with a
handsome 9-year-old son named conner. she works full time but she doesn't make a lot of money. she has to pay for child care, rent, transportation to work, utility costs and all the other expenses families face. now, that doesn't leave much food -- much money for food and certainly not for the healthy nutritious food that growing children need. now, conner suffers from anemia. without her $33 a week in food assistance, she says there's no way she's able to feed her son the protein and iron-rich food he desperately needs. she's terrified of what happens if she loses snap. now, i did the snap challenge and it's just not -- it's just enough to get by. you can't buy fresh vegetables or enough protein and the thought that we would make it even less for those americans who need it is unconscionable. i don't want conner to go hungry and i urge all of my colleagues to vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma.
mr. lucas: i yield to a gentleman who has worked till yeptly on this bill, mr. souther len. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. southerland: there's been a about hings talked today and in the past about this bill. the ranking member and i have gotten to know each other and it's been a pleasure. i mean that sincerely. i want you to know that, madam speaker, that my motivation is only -- has only been to introduce the blessing of work to able bodied people. you know, madam speaker, from your chair you look down the center aisle and you can see one of 23 faces that are at the top of this room. the face you're looking at is the face of moses. as the -- that's the only face that's a full frontal view, not a side view like the other 22 faces that surround this room.
it was his work, the work of moses, that in the first chapter of genesis, god created adam, placed him in the garden to work it. work is not a penl. work is a blessing. and god's very first word was to introduce the responsibility of an able bodied individual to do not just a physical activity, not just an economic activity, but in every sense of the word a spiritual activity. what we have done in this country is wrong. we have failed in introducing the blessing of work to able bodied people who have the ability, who are mentally, physically, psychologically able to work and robbed them of knowing a better life they helped create for themselves and their families. i want to be clear this bill excludes children, it excludes the disabled, it excludes seniors, it make shures that
able bodied individual whors mentally, physically and psychologically able to work know the blessing that god intended. there's been a lot of talk about scripture and a lot of talk about god's plan and i want people to know it was moses, missouris who in this very room, is placed in a position of prominence, it was his very first chapter he gave us god's plan for the able bod yid i have yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady from ohio. consider mr. southerland a friend, but we cannot pick and choose what we take out of the bible. or entions the words poor poverty hundreds of time. i yield one minute to the squeal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> in the northern part of my
district we have veterans unable to find work. i recently visited the bridge house in rural north country of new hampshire which provides for the homeless, many veterans. ms. kuster: it's hard for folks to find a job, especially for returning veterans who have faithfully served our country, yet this bill says they should go hungry. my constituents are frugal yankees who believe that every tax dollar should be spent wisely or not at all. they agree we cannot afford the subsidies for agribusiness that this underlying bill that has now gone over to the senate continues to include. let's ask ourselves, who are we as a people? would we truly not feed a homeless veteran? we are americans and americans take care of each other. the united states is an exceptional country and now is the time to prove it.
i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam speaker, i have the honor and privilege to yield to the majority floor leader of the united states house of leaders, -- the united states house of representatives, one min. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman from oklahoma for his leadership he's demonstrated throughout this process on this bill, throughout the farm bill and know that his heart has been placed into this process and know that the outcome will be one that has been benefited by his leadership throughout the last several years. in his dedication and leadership on this issue. i thank him for that. madam speaker, i do rise today in support of the nutrition reform and work opportunity act. this bill is designed to give people a hand when they need it most.
and most people don't choose to be on food stamps. most people want a job. most people want to go out and be productive. so that they can earn a living, so that they can support a family, that they can have hope for more prosperous future. they want what we want. if others, and there may be some that choose to abuse the system, that's not out of the rem of possibility, frankly it's wrong for hardworking middle class americans to pay for that. madam speaker, i want to tell you a story that's very fitting for this bill there was a woman from arkansas, her name was sherry. she moved there to that state with her two children, ages 11 and 14. she lived with her mom and the four of them shared a
two-bedroom apartment. sherry didn't have much work experience as a stay at home mom, so she applied for help through temporary assistance for needy families, otherwise known as the tanf program, the welfare program that president clinton and a republican congress reformed in 1996 to impose work requirements for able bodied adults. sherry's case officer worked with her to obtain an on-the-job training position at a local hotel where she was hired for an entry level position. before she was quickly promoted to being a team leader. at the department of work force services in arkansas reported, sherry's welfare case was closed and she continued her job at that hotel. a job she loved. going so far as to equate her co-workers with family. and like a family, when the