[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 99 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4376-H4389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM 
                    AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 295

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of 
     agricultural and other programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. 
     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 intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 295 provides for a closed 
rule for consideration of H.R. 2642. However, I think it is important 
to recognize that while the rule before us today is closed, this 
legislation, exactly the legislation, has gone through an amendment 
process on this floor, was debated--just a few weeks ago--debated, 
discussed, and voted on. The amendments which were agreed to as a 
result of that process are in this underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is the exact same language that 
this body considered in June with two important considerations and 
exceptions. Unlike last month, this legislation contains a repeal of 
the 1949 backstop, which means that in the farm bill we will do away 
with that 1949 law as the backstop to the farm products and 
legislation. However, it does not include the nutrition programs from 
the previous bill. We will hear that today.
  On the other hand, however, this bill does include the exact same 
language as the previous bill, including adopted amendments.
  Since the House considered a farm bill last month, there has been a 
great deal of and many conversations, including today with Members, 
that have raised significant concerns with the language as it was 
previously drafted. The chief concern was the inclusion of a nutrition 
policy in the agriculture bill.
  Therefore, after careful consideration of all aspects of the issue, 
the decision was made to consider nutrition and agriculture policy 
separately. However, I want to be clear: removing the nutrition 
provisions from this legislation in no way seeks to marginalize the 
importance of the nutrition programs, nor in any effort are we trying 
to avoid their reauthorization. Anything that would be said on this 
floor contrary to that simply would not be true.
  I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Member, Republican or 
Democrat, who does not think that these programs are vitally important, 
in particular, to women and children. They simply will be considered 
separately and not in this bill.
  Now, the practicality to this, Mr. Speaker, is and was discussed last 
night in the Rules Committee, that is, that if it is not in this title, 
and it is not, and if the House does not move forward on a nutrition or 
SNAP program, then all of these items still go to conference with the 
United States Senate, and it is contained within the Senate bill and 
would be fully operational, debatable, and decisions can be made in 
that conference. In that conference, it is fully authorized and the 
House would simply not have taken a position.
  To assume or to say that we are trying to move a bill without 
nutrition and to take things away would not be truthful. To say that we 
would show up at conference without a position of the House of 
Representatives would be truthful.
  Republicans and Democrats, including leadership of both parties, 
understand and recognize that nutrition and nutrition programs are an 
essential part of not just government services, but an essential part 
of a civilization that we agree with as part of the programs from the 
United States Government. So in no way, in no way, is this intended to 
be a trick or to be seen that we would not believe, or would believe, 
that we would show up to do anything to the nutrition program.
  It would be stated that the House would show up without a position on 
those issues, which would mean in reality that the current law would 
prevail. The House would show up with no position to change any of 
these items related to food stamps, and thus it would stay as is. So 
for someone to suggest that Republicans are not going to be supportive 
of the nutrition programs would simply not, in my opinion, be fairly 
spoken of.
  The House will have an opportunity, however, once we get this done, 
to move forward a bill that if a decision was made could move to 
conference.
  Today's legislation is an important step in making sure that the 
agriculture programs provide the American farmers with innovative risk-
management tools and so many other things that have been placed in this 
bill on a bipartisan basis as a result of the work that began with 
then-Democrat Chairman Collin Peterson when the bill began its writing 
process and now has

[[Page H4377]]

continued on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman, Mr. Lucas, the 
chairman of the committee. That is what we are trying to present today.
  The bill which we are presenting today has every consideration that I 
believe is necessary and important about why this House should move 
forward and support this legislation. Legislation is commonsense, 
fiscally responsible; and it is a solution to answers that are in the 
marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to understand not only what we have stated 
today, but which was testimony last night in an agreement in the Rules 
Committee. I support the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in opposition to the rule which prohibits Members from 
offering amendments that would protect the children of America from 
hunger.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise each Member to 
confine the unanimous-consent request to a simple declarative statement 
of the Member's attitude toward the measure. Further embellishments 
will result in a deduction of time from the yielding Member.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill 
rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from 
America's poor families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, your position as you enunciate 
is when a person says why they are opposed, that that is beyond the 
boundaries of the clarity that you say one must offer when he or she is 
in opposition to the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Members must limit their requests to 
simple declarative statements. Any other embellishment will be charged.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker has enunciated the rule; a simple 
declaratory statement. Clearly, Mr. Hastings made a simple declaratory 
statement as to why he was opposed, and it seems to clearly fall within 
the ambit of the contemplated statement that a Member can make without 
time being charged. The Chair has, however, articulated the fact that, 
without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. If that is 
subject to an objection, which I think it probably is not, I would 
object. But I will also appeal the ruling of the Chair if the Chair 
continues that ruling, and we will have a vote on that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will evaluate each declarative 
statement individually. The gentleman's point has been made.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his observation, and I would hope 
that the declaratory statement, similar to the one being made by Mr. 
Hastings, will clearly not, as it historically, in my view, has not 
done so, count against the time from the gentleman from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LEE of California. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's 
poor families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Brown) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
the underlying bill because it hurts the children of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I have finally received a copy of the bill. It 
appears to have no ``nutrition'' title at all. Is this a printing 
error?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in total opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying 
bill because it hurts America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Beatty) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.

[[Page H4378]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the 
farm bill rule and the underlying bill because we are the conscience of 
the Congress. The majority of the people getting food stamps are not 
African American.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's 
poor families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's 
poor families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al Green) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Kelly) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule 
and the underlying bill because it increases poverty in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in total and strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it starves America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wilson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it takes food from children, and it increases 
the number of starving children in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Referring to your previous ruling, one is allowed to 
give explanation for one's opposition, and those words are to be 
counted as part of the unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, a Member is 
allowed to make a simple declarative statement on a unanimous consent 
request. The Chair is trying to be fair with this.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will you declare, Mr. Speaker, what the 
interpretation is for excessiveness?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will judge each statement as to 
its simple declarative nature.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. In continuing the parliamentary inquiry, is the 
amount of passion in your voice in opposition to the idea that this 
bill creates more starving children?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time the 
Speaker has charged us for these unanimous consent requests thus far?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has been charged 
1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Bass) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it contributes to hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Is it in order to amend the underlying bill and the rule 
that currently provides for billions in subsidies to corporate farms 
while children and families go hungry, school lunch programs are 
decimated, and Meals on Wheels is taken from the disabled and senior 
citizens?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An amendment to the rule could be offered 
only if its manager yields for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule 
and the underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from 
working families.

[[Page H4379]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will not this day go down as 
one of the most shameful days in American history?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's 
poor children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Veasey) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor, and it violates 
the longstanding partnership between agriculture producers and our 
Nation's nutrition programs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that this rule 
takes and bifurcates the bill that came out of the authorizing 
committee and separates it into two separate bills in a way that 
ultimately hurts the working poor of this country?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not the role of the Chair to interpret 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's 
poor families and takes food out of the mouths of children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it significantly increases poverty in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule 
and the underlying bill because it increases poverty in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the CHC, I ask unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to 
the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts America's 
poor children and senior citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. I've been listening, as you've observed, to the judgments.
  What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) just did was to state 
one sentence, but it had an ``and,'' and he gave a second reason he was 
opposed. The first reason was that it increased poverty, and the second 
was that it undermined children. That was in the same sentence. It 
seems there was little substantive difference between the statement 
that preceded it for which you did not charge time and the statement of 
the gentleman from the Hispanic Caucus.
  I would like to understand the parliamentary difference that the 
Speaker perceived in those two statements.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman 
engaged in embellishment.
  Mr. HOYER. He stated two reasons he was opposed.
  Is it the Chair's ruling that only one reason will be allowed to be 
articulated by a Member who is in opposition to this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman also prefaced his remarks.
  Mr. HOYER. He did do that. He explained to the American public, 
presumably who is watching this, Mr. Speaker, as to the framework from 
which he was speaking, that of representing a large group of Hispanic 
Americans, who have a large number of Representatives in this body.
  Can he not explain that he is the person from Maryland, for instance, 
or the person from some other State?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman 
engaged in embellishment.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts the working poor, it leaves children 
without food, and it hurts seniors on an everyday basis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. In explaining your answer to the last parliamentary 
inquiry, you indicated that the problem was that he embellished by 
introducing himself as chairman of the Hispanic Caucus. The gentleman 
from New York who just spoke did not do so, but simply articulated 
three reasons he was opposed to this bill.
  It seems to me that that is certainly within the contemplation of the 
unanimous-consent request. If we start parsing that people can only 
articulate one reason, I would suggest to our friends, the 
Parliamentarians, and to the Speaker, that that will establish a 
precedent which will be very difficult

[[Page H4380]]

and subjective for implementation by the Speaker.
  I ask the Speaker to perhaps further explain why Mr. Meeks' objection 
was charged to Mr. McGovern's time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is drawing the line at a simple 
declarative statement. Multiple, simple declarative statements 
constitute debate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. There was one declarative sentence. It had two commas in 
it. If we're going to parse this to that extent, I suggest to the 
Speaker and, frankly, to those who are advising the Speaker, that we're 
going down a road which is very dangerous.
  Clearly, if there was an extended time, one could understand that. 
But adding two very short parenthetical phrases is, I think, Mr. 
Speaker, inconsistent with your previous rulings as to when you would 
not charge the time against Mr. McGovern.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I understood that when Mr. Hinojosa introduced 
himself as representing all of the Hispanic Caucus, when he objected to 
the underlying bill, that that might be perceived as a greater 
explanation than the Speaker would think warranted. But Mr. Meeks' 
statement, following that immediately, was a simple declarative 
statement with two parenthetical phrases, not long in nature, 
explaining why he was objecting. It seems to me that's consistent with 
the rules and the position of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will continue to evaluate each 
individual declarative statement and make the judgment with regards to 
embellishment according to the previously announced standard.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time has been 
charged against us for these unanimous consent requests thus far?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has been 
charged 2 minutes total.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Would it be in order for me to ask unanimous consent 
that the time that has been charged against us be restored?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object to that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I didn't 
make the request yet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may make his request.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that the time charged against 
us be restored given the fact that we are operating under a closed rule 
on a very important piece of legislation where a lot of Members would 
like to be heard.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Nolan) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it violates a decade-old principle uniting 
urban and rural interests together in feeding hungry people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because veterans in my district, children and patriotic 
families all across America are hungry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule 
and the underlying bill because it increases hunger of our constituents 
throughout this great country of ours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to this mean-spirited farm bill 
rule and the underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from those 
most vulnerable among us, our children.
  Is this what compassionate conservatism is all about?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule 
and the underlying bill because it increases hunger not only in my 
congressional district but hunger in all congressional districts in 
America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline) for a unanimous consent request.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, is it the ruling of the Chair that if in 
stating my request for unanimous consent I state a single reason, it is 
not charged to the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts; if I state 
several reasons in the same sentence because I've cited multiple 
reasons for requesting unanimous consent, that it is charged, assuming 
I do it dispassionately, quietly?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to hypotheticals.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America, hurts seniors, 
and hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts the working poor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr.

[[Page H4381]]

Cleaver) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because, Mr. Speaker, there is a five-decade symbiosis 
between urban America and the farm community.
  I rarely come to this well for a lot of reasons--most of them are 
negative--because I didn't come to Congress to make an enemy. I came 
here to make a difference.
  I'm not here, Mr. Speaker, trying to put politics above productive 
policy; ideology above the injured. I'm not here to form a division, 
but inclusion. I'm not here because I believe in capitulation, but in 
compromise.
  I believe that this bill is doing enormous damage not only to the 
body politic, but to this Nation, and we, the elected leaders of the 
United States Congress--this is not some little club. We are the 
Congress of the United States of America, the most powerful Nation on 
this planet. We can take care of all of the people.
  There are poor children in rural areas that I represent, and I will 
never turn my back on them and I will never turn my back on children in 
the urban core.
  Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill because this bill is not just 
going to create tension among us but the people of this country who 
depend on us. They depend on us. It is not like they can go to an 
alternative body to redress their concerns. If we are about anything, 
it is about trying to take care of these people. That's why we're here.
  I suffer from vertigo. The only way I can stop from wiggling around 
and fainting when I get dizzy with vertigo is to keep my eyes on 
something that doesn't move. I get frustrated and dizzy being in this 
body, and the only way I can stand up is to keep my eyes on something 
that doesn't move. And the thing that does not move are the people of 
the United States, particularly those who are hurting. They don't move. 
My mind is going to stay right there on people who don't move: the 
hurt, the wounded--even the will to be an American. We've got to make 
sure that we take care of everybody in this country, Mr. Speaker.
  I will not, I shall not, I cannot be silent as we continue to divide 
the Nation, and then we think we're doing something good because we're 
able to say something nasty to somebody. The people of this country 
deserve better. We deserve better.
  I've never attacked people on the basis of their party or their 
ideology, and I won't do it. I will not do it. But I will not abandon 
what's right. I will not abandon the things that I keep my eyes on. I 
will not support this bill.
  There are people in rural counties that I represent where Saline 
County, Missouri, a rural county, has greater poverty than Jackson 
County, where Kansas City sits.
  This is not about trying to destroy some kind of system that we put 
in place to protect the rural areas. I'm concerned about the rural 
areas. I was born in Waxahachie, Texas.
  My daddy sent my mother to college when I was in the eighth grade. I 
had never lived in a house with indoor plumbing until I was almost 8 
years old. I lived in public housing. My daddy struggled. With a little 
help, my daddy sent four children through college. We moved out of 
public housing. My daddy lives in his own house right now in Wichita 
Falls, Texas.
  All people are asking for, in some cases, is just a little help. Who 
can they turn to? I hope, I actually even pray, that it's the United 
States Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. RANGEL. Were the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri charged 
to the debate as it relates to the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RANGEL. And how long was that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time was 
charged 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So 4\1/2\ minutes total for all of the unanimous 
consent requests?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts was charged 
7\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So 7\1/4\ minutes have been charged to us for unanimous 
consent requests, notwithstanding the fact that we have a closed rule. 
I think everybody stayed within the limit maybe with a little bit of an 
exception.
  I ask unanimous consent that our time be reinstated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SESSIONS. There is objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal the ruling 
of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no ruling before the House at this 
time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. HOYER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to move a motion that 
the time not be charged to Mr. McGovern as the representative, the 
ranking member, of the Rules Committee, that a motion be in order that 
we could vote on? Would that be in order, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not an appropriate motion.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. I am reluctant to move something that the Speaker has 
advised is not available to us. On the other hand, this is an issue, 
under my parliamentary inquiry, I would ask my friend, the chairman of 
the Rules Committee, if he might reconsider his objection.
  There are very strong feelings on this bill. This bill was not noted 
for consideration until last night. This bill comes to the floor with 
less than 12 hours' preparation; and while I understand the gentleman's 
view, it would seem not so much because it is the rule but because it 
is fair, there are strong, deeply held feelings on this bill, I would 
urge my friend to withdraw his objection. We're talking about probably 
5, 6, 7, 8--I don't how much time Mr. Cleaver took--minutes, so we 
could have the full 30 minutes of debate on the rule itself. I would 
ask my friend if he would consider that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I object. When I receive the 
time, I will offer an explanation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To the gentleman, the minority whip, I would encourage him to please 
recognize that his request to me, as my dear friend, Mr. McGovern, as 
we stated last night in the Rules Committee, I would encourage you to 
please offer me an opportunity to explain not just the position but 
what I believe is the intent of what we are attempting to do.
  Mr. Speaker, in the vote that was held for the farm bill, 171 
Republicans voted for it, 62 Republicans voted against it. For the farm 
bill, 24 Democrats voted for it, 172 Democrats voted against it. This 
meant that the farm bill did not pass. It did not pass this body; and 
as a result of the significance of the underlying legislation of the 
farm bill that does include provisions related to SNAP, the Republican 
leadership, up to and including the Speaker of the House, the gentleman 
from Ohio; and the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia, felt 
it was very important for this body to, as quickly as we returned, to 
offer a bill that could be passed. With the hope that it could be 
passed, an analysis of that bill was done; once again, remembering that 
only 24 Democrats helped to pass the previous bill.
  We are attempting to then separate, bifurcate, offer today a rule and 
the underlying legislation which hopefully

[[Page H4382]]

will pass which would go to conference. And the Senate, because they 
have passed their own farm bill, has included in provisions where they 
discuss SNAP. As a result of that, that will be included in their bill 
on a conference measure.
  The House simply at this point, if we pass this part, could go to 
conference--could go to conference--and would be without resolution, 
would not have passed an amendment or a piece which would discuss it. 
So, in essence, my conferees, your conferees, our conferees, that would 
include the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) as well as Mr. 
Lucas from Oklahoma, would go to the conference without resolution from 
this body. That's all we're talking about. It's fully debatable under 
the conference. We simply would not have made a decision to change 
existing law. And the change in existing law would mean that the Senate 
conferees could stick to their position and hold the cut to $4 billion, 
and we would not have a position to cut a penny.
  I believe that this is an honest attempt to get us to go to--by 
passing part of the farm bill--to get to conference. And the tactics 
against that are simply to keep us from going to conference where we 
would show up with whatever we pass.
  Now, if I have overstated this or understated this, I would encourage 
the minority whip to please engage me in a colloquy at this time, and I 
would yield to the gentleman on the substance of what I have spoken 
about to feel free to enlighten me, and for us to work through this 
very important issue.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  First, let me say that this side of the aisle believes the passage of 
the farm bill is very, very important. It is important for our 
agricultural interests, for our farmers. We believe it's very important 
for those who are relying on nutritional programs and support from us. 
So we share the view and are strongly in favor of the view of passing a 
farm bill, number one, I tell my friend.
  Secondly, I would tell the gentleman, as he well knows, the farm 
bill, for the past 2 years, has passed out of the committee with a 
majority of Democrats, and I think maybe unanimous, but certainly the 
overwhelming majority of Republicans. It passed out last year as a 
bipartisan bill. It was not brought to the floor. It was not brought to 
the floor, as the gentleman recalls, because of the controversies on 
your side, not our side, of the aisle.
  Mr. Peterson, to whom the gentleman referred and the ranking member 
of the committee, was in support of the farm bill. In fact, he 
indicated that he thought there would be sufficient Democrats, with 
Republicans, to pass the farm bill. Very frankly, as the gentleman 
articulated, you lost 62 votes on your side of the aisle, 
notwithstanding the fact that you adopted three amendments during the 
course of consideration of the farm bill that Mr. Peterson advised 
would undercut his ability and the Democrats' ability to support the 
bill.
  Very frankly, I tell my friend that what has happened, the farm bill 
was a bipartisan bill supported by a majority of the Democrats in the 
committee, as the gentleman knows, and by the ranking Democrat, Mr. 
Peterson. It came to the floor, however, and that bipartisanship was 
undermined by the amendments that were adopted. I think that was to the 
knowledge of certainly Mr. Lucas. I know that Mr. Lucas knew that it 
was undermining it.
  We now find ourselves in a position--and I understand what the 
gentleman has said trying to get to conference--where there was little 
or no discussion, certainly not with me, not with Leader Pelosi, about 
how we could move forward in creating a greater bipartisan coalition, 
while clearly recognizing there was opposition in your party and 
opposition in my party. So the way this could have passed in a 
constructive way, in my view, would have been had we reached a 
bipartisan compromise.
  Unfortunately, as is too frequently the case, we have seen where we 
have gone to, in my perspective, an ultra-partisan resolution to try to 
pass this bill and presumably pick up a number of the 62; and you'll 
need a substantial number of the 62 because we don't believe, as you 
can tell, that this is a process that we can support. But it is 
unfortunate because the gentleman is correct, and I respect the 
gentleman's observation, it's important that we pass a farm bill. But 
for over half a century, we have passed a farm bill in a bipartisan 
fashion with consideration from the nutrition people in our country to 
make sure that those who are without food and are hungry would have 
food.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, and I would encourage the gentleman 
to still stand.
  We are now here at a point on the floor where we are, rightly or 
wrongly, attempting to be forthright and honest about what is in the 
bill and what our intents are. I would hope that the gentleman would 
recognize that what we have carefully done is excluded some extraneous 
pieces which might mean--excluded the things that would cause the bill 
to fail and would not allow us, because we come to no decision therein 
of the House, that we could not pass the final bill.
  And what we're trying to do is take this to conference without any 
decision thereon. That is not an indication of a lack of willingness on 
the part of the Republican leadership or any of our Republican Members. 
It simply says we could not come to a decision at this point, and what 
we're trying to do is to move forward so we can get to conference.
  The gentleman, I hope, does recognize that the Senate has spoken. Our 
conferees would be at the table and simply would not have a position 
that has been taken by this House. In no way would it mean it couldn't 
be discussed or could not be done.
  So I would encourage the gentleman to understand then current law 
would prevail. The current law would prevail because we have come to no 
decision therein.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I urge every single Democrat and 
Republican to oppose this rule and to oppose this bill. This is a 
closed rule. Closed. No amendments. Closed.
  And contrary to the claims by some, this bill is not identical to the 
bill we voted on a few weeks ago. The Republican majority has, in fact, 
dramatically changed this farm bill. This 608-page bill, introduced an 
hour before the Rules Committee met last night, has several major 
changes that we know about. I say ``know about'' because we really 
don't know what's in this bill, and we do not know how some of the 
changes will affect long-term farm policy.
  Something new in this bill is the repeal of the 1949 permanent law. 
What does that mean? What impact will that language have on future farm 
policy? Who knows. There hasn't been a single hearing on this language; 
nor has there been a markup. Nothing. Nothing.
  This bill also eliminates the entire nutrition title, which includes 
more than just food stamps. It includes moneys for food banks, 
emergency food assistance, and food for our senior citizens. The whole 
title is gone.
  Three weeks ago, the farm bill was defeated because Democrats were 
strongly opposed to the assault on nutrition programs. And, quite 
frankly, some right wing Republicans voted ``no'' because they oppose 
nearly all government programs. Rather than trying to moderate the bill 
by working with Democrats, rather than compromising, Republican leaders 
have veered sharply to the right trying to win back the Republican Tea 
Partyers who voted ``no.'' And the result of all of this is the bill 
before us.
  Now, my question is: What were the right wingers in the Republican 
conference promised in order to change their votes from ``no'' to 
``yes''? What is the backroom deal that they have negotiated with the 
Republican leadership? How deep of a cut in the SNAP program were they 
promised?
  Now, last night in the Rules Committee we were told there's nothing 
to worry about; that even though title IV was not included in this 
legislation, it is still conferenceable if the bill were to go to 
conference with the Senate. We were told that rather than the $20.5 
billion cut to SNAP that was in the House bill, that it was possible we 
could end up with the Senate-passed $4.5 billion cut, or that we could 
end up with no cuts at all.

[[Page H4383]]

                              {time}  1045

  Does anybody believe that either of those two scenarios is likely or 
even possible--in this Congress?
  I have great respect for the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
Mr. Lucas; but I do not trust this Republican leadership.
  I spent a great deal of time on this House floor during the debate on 
this bill a few weeks ago, and I heard Republican speaker after 
Republican speaker attack SNAP, attack poor people and diminish their 
struggle. We had nasty amendment after nasty amendment attached to the 
bill attacking the nutrition programs that benefit the most vulnerable 
in America. Some of the rhetoric that was spoken on this floor, quite 
frankly, was offensive.
  And leading up to today's vote, I read with great interest the recent 
quotes from Republican Members, some who called for sunsetting of the 
food stamp program, and some who called for deeper cuts in the program.
  I just want to say, for the Record, to my friend from Texas, the 47 
million people who are on SNAP are not extraneous. They are important. 
They are part of our community, and we should not diminish their 
struggle.
  So let's be clear. This attempt to separate the nutrition title from 
the rest of the farm bill is all about gutting the nutrition title. 
It's all about going after Americans who are struggling in poverty. 
It's all about denying the working poor the right to food.
  So when we're asked to trust Republican leaders, to give them the 
benefit of the doubt, I can't. Trust is something that is earned, and 
the behavior of this Republican House towards programs that help the 
working poor, the needy, and the vulnerable has been appalling.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. This is a bad process. It should be 
defeated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I've represented my party and my leadership on the floor today in the 
most sincere way, with an opportunity for me to discuss with senior 
members, not just of the Rules Committee, but also of the Democratic 
leadership. And in no way, in no way, is the Republican Party trying to 
do anything more in this bill that's on here today other than to 
bifurcate and to pass pieces of legislation that then can go to 
conference. But we have to find a way to pass the bill.
  I would remind my colleagues that 172 Democrats voted against the 
bill, then passing it to go to conference, and 171 Republicans voted 
for the bill and sending it to conference.
  The height of, really, the work that we do is to gain a chance to 
have a product, in this case the farm bill, that can then go to 
conference. It's not hyperbole. It is an actual event that can happen. 
Because the Senate has done their work and finished their work, we are 
trying to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Richmond) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it's sinful, it increases poverty in America, 
and it takes the food off the table of American families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman make a point of order?
  Mr. HOYER. I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HOYER. The point of order is that, in fact, consistent with your 
rulings today, that the gentleman's unanimous consent request was not 
any different, in substance or in length, than the unanimous consent 
requests that have been made on a number of occasions, and time was not 
charged. That is inconsistent. It is a subjective judgment, and I 
appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The decision on how and when a Member will be charged in debate is a 
matter confined to the discretion of the Chair. However, the question 
of whether the form of a unanimous consent request is in order under 
the rules is a proper subject for a ruling from the Chair.
  In the opinion of the Chair, it is not in order to embellish a 
unanimous consent request with debate. Remarks in the form of debate 
are charged to the Member yielding.
  The request by the gentleman from Louisiana contained remarks in the 
nature of debate. The point of order is overruled.
  Mr. HOYER. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand in the judgment of the House?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 196, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 347]

                               AYES--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--196

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison

[[Page H4384]]


     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hunter
     McCarthy (NY)
     Moran
     Negrete McLeod
     Rogers (MI)
     Schweikert
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1116

  Ms. CHU and Ms. SPEIER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PERRY, SMITH of Missouri, GARDNER, WALBERG, GERLACH, SANFORD, 
WEBSTER of Florida, SMITH of Texas, WOODALL and DENHAM, and Ms. HERRERA 
BEUTLER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert in the Record 
the Statement of Administration Policy opposing this bill.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 2013.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 2642--Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

                           (Rep. Lucas, R-OK)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642, the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Because 
     the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the 
     Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the 
     text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does 
     not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms 
     and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source 
     of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the 
     country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be 
     constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen 
     all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to 
     reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of 
     Americans--in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of 
     our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be 
     left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 2642, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want everybody who may be watching this 
or in earshot to understand that when the House of Representatives 
cannot pass a farm bill, we have reached a new low. The reverence in 
which we hold our farmers is so strong that the farm bill could almost 
be a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I want to point out to you that 
this is the second time that this House is going to likely not be able 
to pass a farm bill.
  I know I don't have to point out to my constituents on both sides of 
the aisle that the SNAP program, the nutrition program, the school 
lunch program, the Meals on Wheels and what we do to feed people in 
this country is also a farm program because, believe it, people, that's 
where the food comes from. So when you take those programs away, you 
also hurt the farmers.
  We had a pretty offensive attempt here about 3 weeks ago to defund 
the program. So I do not trust, I'm sorry to say, the majority with 
trying to do something about this bill. In fact, I'll make a prediction 
right now. If they decide to bring up the nutrition program as a 
freestanding bill or anything from the Agriculture Committee, there's 
not a chance anywhere--it's better stated that way--that that could 
possibly pass the House simply because we had a lot of explaining here 
this morning. We were told that the fact that the Republicans took the 
SNAP and the nutrition program out of it would not be construed by the 
American people as if they're opposed to feeding people, it's just that 
they thought it was a piece of extraneous matter that they could deal 
with maybe in this some other way.
  What a tragedy that is for all of us to have to go back home and try 
to explain to the people that we represent that this House--the most 
dysfunctional House in history--spending $25 million a week to operate 
the House of Representatives, that our biggest trick here is to pass a 
bill here that we know from the outset will never see the light of day. 
Almost all of them have Statements of Administration Policy that no way 
in the world would the President ever sign any kind of a bill like 
that.
  Enough already. Enough. We've disgraced ourselves before the country. 
We have disgraced ourselves in front of the world. Now, we are raising 
a generation of children right now who have not been adequately----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will just end up this way: I've been here a while. 
I've never seen anything this dysfunctional. I really am embarrassed to 
say today that trying to feed people could be a reason why they would 
stop the farm bill--which, as I said, has been a bipartisan bill, has 
gone through like a hot knife through butter ever since we started 
doing farm bills in the United States. This is the lowest of the low. 
When we can't pass this, you know, ladies and gentlemen, they can't run 
the House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm here to tell you that the opportunity 
for the Rules Committee to put the bill on the floor, as we did several 
weeks ago, resulted in 172 Democrats voting against the bill, which 
meant that it did not make it out of the House, and that's why we're 
here today. We are here today because the bill did not pass. My party 
and our friends, the Democrats, did not supply enough votes to make 
sure that we move forward. And my party is here trying to make sure 
that we get a second shot at passing the farm bill, and that's what we 
intend to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that the 
reason why we did not support the farm bill was because the farm bill 
that the Republicans put on the floor would throw 2 million of our 
fellow citizens off of the food stamp program. The price of the farm 
bill should not be to make more people hungry in America.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I want to say to my friends, the reason the farm bill lost 
is because 62 of your people wouldn't support your Chairman Lucas, who 
pleaded for their support. That's why the farm bill lost. Secondly, it 
lost because you adopted three amendments that undercut poor people in 
America. And so your response has been to abandon them altogether so 
you could get those votes back. Isn't that a shame.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address his 
remarks to the Chair and not to other Members of the body in the second 
person.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as has previously been stated, it is the 
intent of the Republican leadership and this majority party to have a 
bill that will be available and ready that can pass on what might be 
considered the SNAP portions of this farm bill.

[[Page H4385]]

  What we're trying to do today is to pass this bill on the farm 
portions. And it is a fair opportunity to take up the bill exactly as 
we were several weeks ago on debate, on the rule, and on the things 
which passed this House for the will of the House to have its say. That 
is what we're attempting to do today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in this 
bill a straight reauthorization of the SNAP program without any cuts; 
current policy, which would be the same language as the chairman of the 
Rules Committee has promised would be included in the final product.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for such 
unanimous consent?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would not yield for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, it's my privilege to yield 
1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
distinguished Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his tremendous leadership on behalf of feeding the American people. It 
seems a very fundamental thing, Biblical in nature, family-wise, and a 
very important priority for all of us--except maybe not in this House 
of Representatives.
  I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her relentless, persistent 
advocacy to feed the hungry in our country.
  But I rise today--and I've thanked them over and over again--to once 
again thank the Congressional Black Caucus. When they came to the floor 
today to speak in the manner that they did against this legislation and 
for values that our country shares about being a community, they spoke 
not just for the Congressional Black Caucus and for their constituents, 
they spoke for America.
  They have fought this fight over and over again. The inference to be 
drawn from their leadership on this is not that the black community is 
a community that benefits from food stamps. Some people in the 
community do. Overwhelmingly, there are people in your districts in 
rural America, there are people in rural America who really need us to 
pass this legislation. You are taking food out of the mouths of your 
own poor constituents.
  Poverty in America--poverty--I'm saying the word on the floor of the 
House: poverty, poverty, poverty. Poverty in America seems to be a word 
that people get nervous about. Poverty in America among our children is 
something shameful, but it is a reality. It has an impact on children 
to have the uncertainty in their lives that poverty brings. And when 
that poverty says to those children, one in four of you are going to 
sleep hungry tonight, that's just wrong, and it's wrong for America. It 
is not consistent with our values. It does not represent the sense of 
community that makes America strong and that makes America great.
  So to Marsha Fudge, the distinguished chair of the Caucus, to Mr. 
Cleaver, the former chair, to Mr. Clyburn, our distinguished assistant 
leader, to all of my colleagues in the CBC--and a champion on the 
poverty issue, Congresswoman Barbara Lee--I could name all of you 
because you've all been out there on the forefront of this.
  Our democracy is as strong as we are as a people. The middle class is 
the backbone of America. The aspirations of Americans to become part of 
the middle class is what we should be addressing in Congress. And what 
are we doing? One hundred ninety days we've been in this session and no 
jobs bill yet.
  The leadership of the Republican Party says they want regular order. 
They want regular order. They passed a budget bill. Over 3 months ago, 
the Senate passed a budget. The regular order would be to go to 
conference, get rid of the sequester, and to proceed with a bill that 
invests in America--Mr. Hoyer's Make It in America, invest in 
innovation in America, build the infrastructure of America, create 
jobs, and to do so in a way that builds community, strengthens the 
middle class, and grows our economy with jobs.
  The distinguished leadership of this Republican Party in the House 
said they want regular order and they have respect for their 
committees. Well, the Agriculture Committee, in a bipartisan way, 
passed a bill out of the committee.

                              {time}  1130

  I didn't like the bill. It wouldn't have been a bill I would have 
written. When Republicans had the leadership, Democrats cooperated, and 
a bipartisan bill came out of committee.
  The rumor was--and I guess it was just a rumor, but it floated--that 
then it would respect that bill. If they could come out with a 
bipartisan bill, it would be taken up on the floor.
  The bill that we have here--as little we know about it because it 
emerged in the middle of the night--bears no resemblance to the bill 
that came out of committee. Actions of the Republican leadership have 
been disrespectful to the committee process, so don't hand us the 
regular order argument.
  The audacity to split off the nutrition parts of this bill is so 
stunning it would be shocking, except this is a ``House of shocks.'' I 
would say it is one of the worst things you have done, but there is 
such stiff competition for that honor that I can't really fully say 
that.
  But when you take food out of the mouths of babies and you prevent a 
bill from going forth that addresses our food banks and our nutrition 
needs and the rest for our country, what are you thinking? Or are you 
thinking--or are you thinking?
  I thank you, CBC, for your leadership on this. I thank you, Jim 
McGovern and Rosa DeLauro, and all of you, because this is a fight that 
you are making for every person in America to live in a country of 
values, of values that include our faith. Our faith tells us that to 
minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship; to ignore 
those needs, as this bill does, is to dishonor the God who made us.
  This is very wrong. This, even in this place, crosses a threshold 
that we should never go past--should never go past. This is totally out 
of the question.
  I am a mom. One of the reasons I am involved in politics is I see 
this as an extension of my role as a mother of five kids, and now many 
grandchildren. God blessed us. But what drove me to this was that I saw 
all that my kids had, all the opportunity, all the love, all the 
concern, all of the rest of it; and I thought the best thing that we 
could all do is to make sure that our children, for their own welfare, 
grew up in a country where all of America's children were treated with 
respect as we meet their needs. That's just not happening here today.
  I call upon our friends in the faith community, and they are here on 
this issue, as well as most of the farmers groups and all the rest. 
There is nobody--there is nobody outside this body who supports this 
bill who cares about the values that we all profess to have within 
these walls.
  Again, taking food out of the mouths of babies, that's a good policy? 
I don't think so. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to other Members of the body.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity, once again, as I stated 
at the very top of this rule that we began several hours ago, is that 
the Republican leadership and the Republican membership have great 
respect for men and women who have fallen on hard times. We have great 
respect for the millions of people who have lost their jobs and 
continue to lose their jobs--full-time jobs that have gone to part-time 
jobs. We recognize that our country is facing very difficult times and 
more difficult each and every day.
  It is our hope through this bill, and a following opportunity, to 
make sure that the entire piece parts of the will of this body go 
directly to the conference and meet with the Senate. That is what we 
are attempting to do today. For Members to ensure that we get to a 
conference with a complete part of this bill, that is why we are here 
today and will be here in the immediate future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a 
letter from Bob Stallman, the president of the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, in opposition to this bill.

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 2013.
     Hon. * * *,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. * * *: The American Farm

[[Page H4386]]

      Bureau Federation is our nation's largest general farm 
     organization, representing more than 6 million member 
     families in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Our members 
     represent the grassroots farmers and ranchers who produce 
     the wide range of food and fiber crops for our customers 
     here and around the world. To achieve this, farmers and 
     ranchers depend on the variety of programs such as risk 
     management, conservation, credit and rural development 
     contained in H.R. 2642 that is scheduled to be voted on by 
     the full House today.
       Last night the House Rules Committee approved the rule for 
     considering H.R. 2642, which also includes separating the 
     nutrition title from the remaining provisions of H.R. 1947, a 
     complete farm bill that was reported out of the House 
     Agriculture Committee by a 36-10 bipartisan vote.
       We are very disappointed in this action. The ``marriage'' 
     between the nutrition and farm communities and our 
     constituents in developing and adopting comprehensive farm 
     legislation has been an effective, balanced arrangement for 
     decades that has worked to ensure all Americans and the 
     nation benefits. In spite of reports to the contrary, this 
     broad food and farm coalition continues to hold strong 
     against partisan politics. In fact, last week, more than 530 
     groups representing the farm, conservation, credit, rural 
     development and forestry industries urged the House to not 
     split the bill. Similar communications were relayed from the 
     nutrition community. Yet today, in spite of the broad-based 
     bipartisan support for keeping the farm bill intact, you will 
     vote on an approach that seeks to affect a divorce of this 
     longstanding partnership. It is frustrating to our members 
     that this broad coalition of support for passage of a 
     complete farm bill appears to have been pushed aside in favor 
     of interests that have no real stake in this farm bill, the 
     economic vitality and jobs agriculture provides or the 
     customers farmers and ranchers serve.
       We are quite concerned that without a workable nutrition 
     title, it will prove to be nearly impossible to adopt a bill 
     that can be successfully conferenced with the Senate's 
     version, approved by both the House and Senate and signed by 
     the President.
       We are also very much opposed to the repeal of permanent 
     law contained in H.R. 2642. This provision received 
     absolutely no discussion in any of the process leading up to 
     the passage of the bill out of either the House or Senate 
     Agriculture Committees. To replace permanent law governing 
     agricultural programs without hearing from so much as a 
     single witness on what that law should be replaced with is 
     not how good policy is developed.
       As recently as last December, the threat of reverting to 
     permanent law was the critical element that forced Congress 
     to pass an extension of the current farm bill when it proved 
     impossible to complete action on the new five-year farm 
     bill--an action that not only provided important safety net 
     programs for this year, it ensured Congress would have time 
     this year to consider comprehensive reforms that contribute 
     billions to deficit reduction.
       We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against 
     final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end 
     permanent law provisions for agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a 
leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote to end 
nutrition programs in America. Members on the other side of the aisle 
have already expressed that this morning. Imagine referring to the 
nutrition title of the farm bill as extraneous--extraneous. Dealing 
with hunger, dealing with people who have fallen on those hard times, 
dealing with their food insecurity and their being hungry and kids 
going to bed hungry every night in this Nation is extraneous. But that 
says it all. That tells you where their values are.
  Before we consider the content of this legislation, take a minute to 
review what just has happened. Shortly before 8 p.m. last night, the 
majority posted a 608-page bill online and announced a meeting at 9 to 
consider the bill. The majority violated their own rule of allowing at 
least 3 days to review legislation before a vote.
  I have a copy of the bill right here. This is the bill--608 pages. 
Have my colleagues read all of the 608 pages? Have they taken the time 
to know what is in it? Do they understand that in 2014, in fact, that 
what they have done adds to the deficit? No.
  Instead, we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill 
designed to inflict great harm. And even more pernicious is the 
substance of this bill, which throws millions of American families 
aside. This removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill with 
no indication that the majority intends to take up those programs in 
the near future.
  Let's be clear about what this means. Food stamps are the critical 
central strand of our social safety net--our country's most important 
effort to deal with hunger--helping over 47 million Americans: nearly 
half of them are children; 99 percent of recipients live below the 
poverty line; and 75 percent of households receiving this aid include a 
child, a senior citizen, or an individual with a disability. These are 
the individuals and the people that this Republican majority has just 
called extraneous. They are not extraneous.
  The bill before us would mean the death knell of the food stamp 
program and the other nutrition programs that have been part of the 
farm bill for decades. This bill is immoral, and it is a serious risk 
to our society.
  532 farm groups sent the Speaker a letter opposing the splitting off 
of nutrition programs. Bishop Stockton and other religious leaders 
wrote a letter calling food stamps ``one of the most effective and 
important Federal programs to combat hunger in the Nation,'' and ``a 
crucial part of the farm bill,'' relieving ``pressure on overwhelmed 
parishes, charities, food banks, pantries, and other emergency food 
providers.'' Yet this bill provides the way to gut the food stamp 
program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 
seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Historically, the farm bill has been a safety net for 
farmers and families. It has enjoyed bipartisan support up until now 
until this majority has rent that support asunder.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to end nutrition programs in America, 
to break the longstanding bipartisan compact that the farm bill 
represented for decades. It takes food out of the mouths of hungry 
children, seniors, veterans, and the disabled. It is immoral. These 
people are not extraneous.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Members are reminded to confine their remarks to the time allocated 
to them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night we had the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Lucas, who approached the committee and said 
he would like for us to consider this bill on farm bill portions. He 
indicated that he would follow up and had every intent to follow up 
with a companion part, the separation of these, which would be the SNAP 
portions.
  Today, we are attempting to offer the bill on the farm policy, and we 
are doing that. We intend to be able to put these items together and 
move them forward. I have great confidence, not only in Mr. Lucas, but 
also in every Member of this body who understands firsthand that women 
and children and those who have fallen on hard times do need the SNAP 
program. We intend to make sure that that is properly taken care of.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, 
which cuts off nutrition assistance to millions of Americans, including 
thousands of Rhode Islanders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule; 
and to the total elimination of funding for the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) in the underlying Farm Bill.
  Three weeks ago, the House voted down the Republican-led Farm Bill, 
rejecting its draconian cuts to SNAP as unnecessarily harmful. The bill 
before us today contains virtually the same farm provisions, only this 
time it omits any and all funding for nutrition assistance. Splitting 
agricultural and nutrition policy sets a terrible precedent. In fact, 
over 500 agricultural groups oppose this bill, as do environmental and 
animal welfare advocates.
  In the wealthiest nation in human history, it is unconscionable that 
every American cannot afford life's basic necessities. SNAP helps 
millions of Americans living in poverty put food

[[Page H4387]]

on the table. Eighty percent of the households receiving SNAP earn 
below the federal poverty level, making it a vital form of assistance 
for working families.
  Last month, I proudly joined a group of my Democratic colleagues in 
taking the SNAP challenge, a commitment to living on no more than $4.50 
in daily food costs. Every member of Congress should experience what 
it's like to subsist on such a paltry sum and should understand the 
impact of the decisions we make on the lives of the constituents we 
represent.
  When we take food off of the plates of hungry children, we have a 
moral obligation to fully comprehend the consequences of those actions. 
Under this bill, thousands of Rhode Island families will see their SNAP 
benefits evaporate. This isn't a solution; it's a bait and switch that 
I cannot support.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and reject the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it hurts America's children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and 
underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from working 
families and veterans and seniors and children and the disabled and 
many others in need.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell us whether it 
would be in order to allow the majority to amend the underlying bill 
that provides for agricultural subsidies to prohibit Members of 
Congress who receive financial benefits payments and taxpayer subsidies 
from the underlying legislation from actually voting on the legislation 
from which they directly profit financially? Would that be in order for 
the majority to amend the bill for that purpose?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager is in charge of the 
pending resolution.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  Would it be appropriate to ask the majority to make an amendment to 
the bill to prohibit Members who receive taxpayer subsidies from 
benefiting financially and to prohibit them from voting on the 
underlying legislation from which they profit financially?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot speculate, but the majority 
manager may yield for an amendment to the resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a great leader 
on issues dealing with poverty and hunger, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition 
to this rule and the underlying Republican bill.
  The partisan bill before us is an abomination and shows just how out 
of touch, out of control, this extreme Tea Party-controlled Congress 
is. I can't say, though, that I am surprised. I am sad to say that this 
House has reached a very shameful new low.
  This bill also violates decades of bipartisan support for a delicate 
balance between America's nutrition programs, farm conservation, and 
other priorities. This partisan bill also fails to reauthorize 
nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans in rural and 
urban areas across our country. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger and among 
the most effective forms of economic stimulus.
  Republicans say they want to decrease poverty and hunger--I hear this 
all the time on our committees--yet they do just the opposite.

                              {time}  1145

  Be assured this bill will increase poverty and hunger. It is a moral 
disgrace. Nobody wants this Republican bill to move forward--not the 
532 companies and organizations from every congressional district that 
have urged this Congress to not break apart the farm bill, not the 
administration which issued a veto threat last night, and certainly not 
the millions of low-income and poor people and working families with 
children and seniors who continue to struggle from the impact of the 
Great Recession.
  Enough is enough. This is un-American. It's a shame and a disgrace. 
It's not only on days that we worship that we must remember to do unto 
others as you would have them do unto you.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Chairman Sessions, for yielding, and thank 
you for all of the hard work that you do in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer. I love to farm. It's in my blood. I 
farmed before I came to Congress, and I'll farm when I leave.
  So, as a fourth-generation farmer, today I rise to say we have an 
historic opportunity to legislate responsibly and reform prudently when 
it comes to farm policy and food stamp policy. We, together, can defeat 
business as usual in Washington, D.C. For the first time in 40 years of 
farm policy, the House has an opportunity to enact landmark reform in 
ag policy and to separate the farm bill. Because of policy dating back 
to the Carter administration, 80 percent of the last trillion-dollar 
farm bill went to food stamps. I don't believe that's right, and as a 
farmer, I can tell you it doesn't serve farmers well. Believe it or 
not, it doesn't serve the needs of those who need help in this country 
either.
  A year ago, I began to call on Congress to separate the farm bill. 
Our goal has been to reform ag and food stamp policy so that they can 
really help the folks they were intended to help. Farm policy and food 
stamp policy should not be mixed. They should stand on their own 
merits. As Congress immorally sinks our country into debt by $17 
trillion, taxpayers deserve an honest conversation in order to find 
solutions to help Americans who really need help.
  Together, we can get this done and pass the first farm-only farm bill 
in 40 years. Today, we can pass a bill that sends a clear message that 
the days of deceptively named budget-busting bills are over. By 
splitting the bill, we can give taxpayers an honest look at how 
Washington spends our money. We've made progress by eliminating direct 
payments, but there is more work ahead, so splitting the farm bill is 
the next logical step on the path to real reform in farm policy and in 
helping those who genuinely need help.
  I am proud to vote for this legislation, and I thank all of those who 
put such hard work into it. As a fourth-generation farmer, I am proud 
to vote for the first farm-only farm bill in 40 years.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Is it proper to offer an amendment at this time or at 
some future time on the underlying bill that would preclude Members of 
Congress who receive financial benefits, payments, or subsidies from 
the underlying legislation from voting on this bill from which they 
directly profit financially?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An amendment to the rule may only be offered 
if the majority manager yields for such purpose.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I ask the majority manager if he would yield for such 
an amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and 
I will not yield for that purpose.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

[[Page H4388]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. I do not know that the gentleman has been yielded that 
time by his manager.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has reserved, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a statement from 
the Club for Growth which is in opposition to this bill and which 
indicates they will score this vote.

        Key Vote Alert--``NO'' on ``Farm Only'' Bill (H.R.    )

       The Club for Growth strongly opposes the ``Farm-Only'' bill 
     and urges all House members to oppose it. We believe floor 
     consideration of the bill could happen as early as this week. 
     The vote on final passage will be included in the Club's 2013 
     Congressional Scorecard.
       Breaking up the unholy alliance between agricultural policy 
     and the food stamp program within the traditional farm bill 
     is an excellent decision on behalf of House leadership. 
     However, the whole purpose of splitting up the bill is to 
     enact true reform that reduces the size and scope of 
     government. Sadly, this ``farm-only'' bill does not do that, 
     especially under an anticipated closed rule. It is still 
     loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special 
     interests with no path established to remove the government's 
     involvement in the agriculture industry.
       Worse, we highly suspect that this whole process is a 
     ``rope-a-dope'' exercise. We think House leadership is 
     splitting up the farm bill only as a means to get to 
     conference with the Senate where a bicameral backroom deal 
     will reassemble the commodity and food stamp titles, leaving 
     us back where we started. Unless our suspicions are proven 
     unwarranted, we will continue to oppose this bill.
       Our Congressional Scorecard for the 113th Congress provides 
     a comprehensive rating of how well or how poorly each member 
     of Congress supports pro-growth, free-market policies and 
     will be distributed to our members and to the public.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The only thing that this House will do when it votes 
today is defeat starving children. It will again put starving children 
in the abyss of the uncaring attitude of my friends who for the first 
time in decades are separating the heart line of the farm bill--the 
nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the 
food stamps program.
  I am glad to stand with the Democratic Caucus and the Congressional 
Black Caucus and others to be able to say that hunger is silent. There 
are no children at that microphone on this floor today, standing over 
here, telling you that their bellies are protruding because they have 
not eaten. There is no one on this floor today who goes to a summer 
program and who did not eat because the breakfast program is tied to 
the school, and they are out of school, and summer brings about hunger. 
There is no one who has told you that families have an extra $300 bill 
in the summertime to feed their children, and for those who do not have 
it, no one has told you that the lack of protein in a diet leads to the 
disease and decay of teeth and bone for the very children that we say 
are the priority of this place.
  In decades, you have never separated the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program--a $20 billion cut, a $3 billion cut, making it $23 
billion in cuts. You will never put that on the floor. You will slide 
it through because all the folks want is a piece of a sound bite at 
home to say they believe in deficit reduction.
  I believe in the life of the children. I believe in growing our 
children. Vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The 
gentlewoman from Texas is out of order. The gentlewoman from Texas is 
reminded to address her remarks to the Chair and not to other Members 
of the body. Members are reminded to confine their remarks to the time 
allotted to them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who is a 
farmer, very clearly, I believe, spoke about the intent of this bill, 
and that is that we are going to talk about farm policy.
  There are revisions and changes that update not only Federal farm 
policy, but they are done on a bipartisan basis. The gentlemen on both 
sides of the aisle--the ranking member and the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee--have worked very closely on this, and I believe 
that what is on the floor today offers an opportunity to debate that 
and to see if we can pass it. That's what we are trying to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, apparently, it was not enough for the House 
majority to decimate the nutrition title the last time we considered 
the farm bill a few weeks ago with the $20 billion cut. When they 
couldn't get the majority of Republicans to vote for it because it just 
wasn't cut enough, they just eliminated the entire nutrition title--the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These are 
fancy names and acronyms for the programs that allow seniors, young 
children, and the disabled to stock their food pantries. I can't wrap 
my mind around the shameful nature of this moment, a moment when we are 
moving forward with the farm bill and leaving behind 47 million of our 
Nation's hungry.
  Now, it has been asserted, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership is 
not attempting to starve vulnerable families but merely wants to 
expedite the passage of the all-important agricultural components of 
the bill by removing the extraneous nutrition title. Since 1965, we 
have reauthorized our antihunger programs alongside our agriculture-
related policies in a marriage; but at this moment, the House has filed 
for divorce, and the primary breadwinner is abandoning two-thirds of 
the family, consisting of children--young, babies--the elderly, and the 
disabled. H.R. 2642 is a deadbeat majority's proposal to avoid child 
support, elderly subsidies, and food assistance to the disabled of 47 
million people.
  What kind of message are we sending with the passage of this bill? We 
are telling our Nation's hungry that Congress is willing to turn a 
blind eye and that food is an extraneous concern of the Congress.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks on behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands in 
strong opposition to this farm bill. It hurts children and families in 
our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this farm bill 
rule and underlying bill because it cruelly takes food away from poor 
children, the elderly, and the disabled.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time will 
be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Cartwright) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strong opposition to this farm bill rule and the 
underlying bill because it increases hunger in America, and it punishes 
all of

[[Page H4389]]

those who rely on the SNAP program in this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I object. I can't agree to a unanimous 
consent that this increases hunger in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is not recognized 
for the purpose of debate.
  Objection to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's request was heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WATT. Whose time got charged with the last two unanimous consent 
requests? Both were one sentence, and you're saying they were charged.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts' time has 
been charged.
  Mr. WATT. Would the Speaker explain to the House why that is the 
case.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any request that is accompanied by remarks 
that are in the nature of debate is charged, not the unanimous consent 
request itself, but the remarks that follow the unanimous consent 
request that are in the nature of debate.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to that ruling, and I would ask the 
Speaker to reverse it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no ruling pending at this time. 
There is nothing for the gentleman to object formally to.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the time of the two previous 
speakers who asked for unanimous consent not be charged to the time of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's motion is not in order. 
There is no motion that can achieve that end.
  Mr. WATT. I ask unanimous consent to restore the time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  Mr. GOHMERT. Objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am not yielding for that purpose.

                          ____________________