Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate, and the underlying bill, regarding H.R.2, the so- called ``Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018,'' the House Republicans' failed attempt to produce a Farm Bill that is good for America.

A more fitting name for this terrible and bitter legislative pill would be the ``Let Poor Families and Children Starve so Billionaires Can Get Fatter Act.''

Going back to 1962, beginning with Senators Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, and George McGovern, Farm Bills have always attracted bipartisan support and engendered an enduring alliance between urban and rural legislators in the common cause of ensuring livable incomes for farm families and an affordable and nutritious food supply.

With this purely partisan bill, House Republicans have turned their back on this 56 year heritage.

Mr. Speaker, St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian, said: ``Without justice, what else is the state but a gang of robbers?''

There is no justice in this Farm Bill, but there is harm--lots of it--inflicted on the most vulnerable, so much so that many people are saying that the House Republican majority has produced a bill that is worthy of a gang of robbers.

I oppose this rule and underlying legislation for several reasons but most of all because of its abject cruelty to American's most vulnerable families and children.

H.R. 2 slashes $23 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (``SNAP''), a lifeline depended upon by millions of families and children to provide for their daily nutrition needs.

But who among us can say they are truly surprised?

Since taking office sixteen months ago, the President has made abundantly clear his indifference to the most vulnerable citizens in society.

And he has been aided in his endeavors by a feckless House Republican majority.

The President began his presidency with a concerted and determined push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a law which has helped over 17 million individuals gain health insurance; reduced the uninsured rate by 40 percent and, provided 89 percent of Americans with the security and peace of mind that comes with access to affordable quality healthcare.

When that effort failed, the President next turned his efforts to passing the massive Trump-GOP Tax Scam, which slashed taxes for the top one percent and multi-national corporations, but the negative consequences of which the Trump-GOP Tax Scam have been devastating for the average American.

The GOP Tax Scam has now been revealed not to generate broad-based economic growth but instead to create annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be honest about creating an environment where individuals have an opportunity to emerge from poverty conditions, there must be access to nutritious food.

SNAP is a critical component to providing food security to lower- income Americans.

SNAP sets children up for success.

Children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school, helping to break the cycle of poverty and build a stronger economy in the long term.

SNAP is temporary.

The average family spends just ten months on SNAP, receiving assistance only during difficult times.

(SNAP is critical for poor and working families.

Most participate in SNAP when they are between jobs.

Among households with at least one working-age non-disabled adult roughly 8o percent of SNAP households work in the year before or the year after receiving SNAP.

Close to two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or disabled.

The vast majority of those who are required to work, do work.

The average per person benefit is $132 per month, or about$1.60 per meal.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to become law, it would cut $23 billion from SNAP and would kick one million households off the program.

That means 83,000 Texas families would see their benefits cut, impacting more than 96,000 individuals.

In Texas, over half of all SNAP beneficiaries live below the poverty line so cutting access to SNAP would be devastating.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we not increase food security for the least vulnerable among us.

If our children are not adequately and safely housed, they are not protected from life's crueler elements.

If they are not fed, they lack nourishment and preparation for school and all its challenges.

Mothers know this and their children know this.

Everyone knows this, with the apparent exception of the President and House Republicans.

The House Republicans' eagerness to sacrifice poor and working families and children by cutting SNAP and other food assistance programs for up to 23 million people by $23 billion is an accurate reflection of their priorities and values, which favor tax cuts for multinational corporation and the top 1 percent at the expense of the poor and working class and those striving to enter the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, there are other major insults, injuries, and cruelties inflicted on working families by this callous legislation.

This so-called Farm Bill changes SNAP from a food program to a work program by imposing new draconian work requirements on adult SNAP participants between 18 and 59 years old, requiring documentation showing 20 hours per week of work or participation in a job training program.

The changes include severe, harsh penalties if the paperwork is not filed on time, ignoring the reality of low-wage work, which is plagued by unstable, uncertain work schedules, unpredictable hours, and few benefits like paid sick or family leave.

This mean-spirited legislation threatens free school meals for 265,000 children and SNAP eligibility for 400,000 households by eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which allows states flexibility to link their social service programs to SNAP.

The bill also severs the connection between SNAP and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps families pay their energy utilities, adversely impacting working families and people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, this wretched legislation is an equal-opportunity catastrophe because it also inflicts serious damage on farm families and rural America at a time of great challenge and economic uncertainty.

Farm prices are plummeting amid the self-inflicted damage of President Trump's tariffs yet this bill instead of providing relief exacerbates the economic and social pain in rural America by killing good-paying rural jobs, cutting a gaping hole in the critical farmer safety net and shifting opportunity away from America's small towns with cuts to vital rural development, sustainable conservation, and energy initiatives.

Inexplicably, H.R. 2 fails to address the 52 percent decline in farm income and eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, the nation's largest working lands conservation program, by merging it with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, resulting in $800 million less for investments in preserving working lands and sustainable farm practices.

The legislation hurts rural families in several additional ways by:

Failing to increase funding for USDA's trade assistance programs that help farmers stay globally competitive through initiatives that help to develop and expand their business in overseas markets;

Abolishing the entire Energy Title, resulting in lost investments in jobs of the future in renewable energy and biofuels;

Adding onerous fees to rural development guaranteed loans;

Curtailing broadband assistance in remote areas by adding administrative burdens and fails to boost USDA's telemedicine initiatives that help combat opioid abuse in rural America;

Underfunding the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which provides funding to organizations that educate, mentor and provide technical assistance for new and veteran farmers; and

Betraying the next generation of farm and food leaders by failing to provide mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grant institutions.

This so-called Farm Bill is so bad in so many ways to so many people that it is little wonder that it is strongly opposed by leading organizations and associations from all sides of the political spectrum, including: National Farmers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Environmental Working Group, National Young Farmers Coalition, Union of Concerned Scientists, Agriculture Energy Coalition, American Biogas Association, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Psychological Association, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Every Child Matters, Families USA, Feeding America, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center, Hispanic Federation, Lutheran Services in America, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Meals on Wheels America, MomsRising, NAACP, National Consumers League, National Council on Aging, National Employment Law Project, National PTA, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NOW, Partnership for America's Children, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, SEIU, Share Our Strength, UnidosUS, YWCA USA, Heritage Foundation, R Street Institute, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to reject the rule and this cruel, heartless legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows An amendment to H. Res. 900 offered by Mr. McGovern

On p. 2, line 2, insert ``The amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.'' after ``purposes.''

At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of this resolution is as follows:

`Add at the end the following: Subtitle H Protections From Retaliatory Tariffs SEC. 11801. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not take effect until the President transmits a certification to Congress that the following Administration efforts will not result in adverse trade or tariff impacts against U.S. farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers:

(1) the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement;

(2) the application of tariffs and/or quotas on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

(3) any enforcement action taken pursuant to the investigation into China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; and

(4) the application of global safeguard tariffs on imports of large residential washing machines and solar cells and modules under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.'' ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule....When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source