Agricultural Credit Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas at least three members of the House Democratic

Leadership have endorsed a procedural tactic for the sole

purpose of avoiding an up-or-down vote, by the yeas and nays,

on the Senate-passed health care bill;

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 Representative James

Clyburn, the House Majority Whip, stated, ``We will deem

passed the Senate bill. . .'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post reported,

``After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week

on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure

without having members vote on it. Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.)

would rely on a procedural sleight of hand. . .'';

Whereas in the same Washington Post article, the Speaker

declared, ``. . . I like it because people don't have to vote

on the Senate bill.'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, McClatchy Newspapers reported

Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic

Caucus, stated, ``Many of our members would prefer not to

have voted for the Senate bill.'';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 9, U.S. News and World Report

reported, ``Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected

officials assembled `that Congress [has] to pass the bill so

you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of

controversy.' '';

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post

editorialized, ``. . . what is intended as a final sprint

threatens to turn

into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to

Democrats' promises of transparency and time for

deliberation. . . . [I]t strikes us as a dodgy way to reform

the health-care system. Democrats who vote for the package

will be tagged with supporting the Senate bill in any

event.''

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The form of the remainder of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, the Cincinnati Enquirer

editorialized, ``This disgusting process, which Democrats

brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done

with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of

Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is

necessary, think this particular approach will take our

nation down the wrong economic path.'';

Whereas bipartisan members of the House and Senate have

expressed their opposition to using the Slaughter Solution;

Whereas on Wednesday, March 10, Representative Joe Donnelly

released the following statement, ``The process over the past

few months has been frustrating, including the cutting of

unacceptable special deals to assure a few senators'

votes.'';

Whereas Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania has

characterized the exploitation of the Slaughter Solution by

Democratic Leadership as ``wrong'' and unpopular among his

constituents;

Whereas on Friday, March 12, POLITICO reported on a memo

sent from Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to freshman and

sophomore House Democrats that stated, ``At this point, we

have to just rip the band-aid off. . . Things like

reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE

Mr. Speaker, I seek to offer the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed the following recorded votes on the House floor the week of Monday, March 15, 2010.

For Monday, March 15, 2010, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 112 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1145), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 113 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1170), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 114 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1163), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 115 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 267).

For Tuesday, March 16, 2010, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 116 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 4628), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 117 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 311), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 118 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 605), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 119 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1128).

For Wednesday, March 17, 2010, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 120 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1089), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 121 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1167), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 122 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1184), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 123 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1141), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 124 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to S. 1147), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 125 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 3954), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 126 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 946), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 127 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 4825).

For Thursday, March 18, 2010, had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 131 (on motion to refer H. Res. 1193, raising a question of the privileges of the House), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 132 (on motion to table H. Res. 1193, raising a question of the privileges of the House), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 133 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 3542), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 134 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 3509), ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 135 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1173).

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3509) to reauthorize State agricultural mediation programs under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill H.R. 3509.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3509, the Agricultural Credit Act of 2009. This bill would reauthorize funding for the State agricultural mediation grant program, which operates under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. The grant program for the agricultural mediation program was established more than 20 years ago to respond to the agricultural crisis of the 1980s. Mediation helped agricultural producers, their creditors, and USDA agencies address disputes through a confidential and nonadversarial process that takes place outside the traditional legal system of foreclosure, appeals or litigation. This bypasses a lot of the bureaucratic red tape that usually comes with resolving these conflicts, saving taxpayers money in the process.

Earlier in the month, the House Agriculture Committee approved this bipartisan legislation by unanimous voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support the extension of this successful initiative.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for carrying this legislation. I think it's good bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3509, the Agricultural Credit Act of 2009. I'm an original cosponsor of this bill, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation to reauthorize the State agricultural mediation program. The State mediation program provides our farmers and ranchers with a voluntary and low-cost service to mediate disputes that may arise between their creditors and themselves and to address adverse decisions with the USDA. The State programs do this in a confidential and nonadversarial setting outside of the traditional legal process of foreclosure, bankruptcy, appeals, and litigation.

Like most of the country, the agricultural sector is currently experiencing increased financial stress, which has created a greater need for the services of the agricultural mediator program. The Agriculture Committee favorably considered this bill with no opposition, and I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting the continuation of the USDA agricultural mediation program.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3509, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.