Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1947) 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; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1797) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 266 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic and has nothing to do with our bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 266? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is a dilatory tactic.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. This is a dilatory tactic, and we should be moving on to the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking the question.

What I think most Americans would wonder, Mr. Speaker, is where is the due process for the millions of babies who are murdered every year in this country by these unconscionable tactics of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 266 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and general debate for H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for general debate of H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the FARRM Bill. This legislation provides for a 5-year authorization of Federal agriculture and nutrition policy.

H.R. 1947 makes necessary reforms and updates to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, as well as Federal agriculture policy. It is important to make commonsense changes to these programs to ensure their viability and that they remain targeted to those most in need of assistance. This year's version of the farm bill has gone through regular order, including numerous hearings at the Agriculture Committee, a full committee markup and amendment process.

Additionally, the Rules Committee has received hundreds of amendments from Members seeking to further improve the bill during floor consideration. House Republicans remain committed to an open, transparent process; and I am pleased to say we're continuing that commitment with the consideration and process for the FARRM Bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that my colleague from New York knows this, but I will make sure it gets into the Record.

In the 2007 case of Gonzales v Carhart, the Supreme Court made clear that there is a ``legitimate interest of the government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.'' The Supreme Court has also made clear that ``the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,'' and that Congress may show such respect for the unborn through ``specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.''

Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled by the fact that so many of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge that we're dealing with human life in this situation, in the situation of abortion. My heart goes out to any woman who is facing a situation where they're considering abortion. I think every member of our conference feels that way--men and women. Nobody takes the issue of abortion lightly. Unfortunately, not enough attention is being paid to the unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, now, 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.--Congressman--Fleming.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are accusing us of, we're talking about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Speaker, there's a lot of talk about rights here today and very little talk about the right to life for the babies that are being aborted.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Speaker, this bill is not borne of ignorance but of extremely deep-felt concern for unborn children who suffer pain as they are being murdered.

Madam Speaker, I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the termination of unborn children for any reason is tolerated in some parts of our country throughout pregnancy, even though scientific conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks' gestation. That means literally that a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the most common second-trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.

Madam Speaker, it's even difficult for me to describe this procedure without getting emotional. These procedures are horrific, and in terms of pain, like torture to their infant subjects. As

a country, we should leave this practice behind. That's why I'm a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. Since 1973, approximately 52 million--52 million, Madam Speaker--children's lives have been tragically aborted in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.

H.R. 1797 rejects that hypocrisy and provides commonsense protections for unborn children who feel pain, just as you and I do. My colleague and friend from Arizona, Representative Trent Franks, is a champion for the unborn, and I commend him for authoring this legislation, which prohibits an abortion of an unborn child that has surpassed 20 weeks after fertilization.

In light of the recent conviction of Philadelphia-based, late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of first-degree murder in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic and then killed through a procedure he called ``snipping,'' which involved Gosnell inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord, a procedure that was reportedly routine in his clinic, we cannot stand idly by.

Madam Speaker, some would have us think that Gosnell is an anomaly or an outlier. However, after his conviction, more individuals have stepped forward to expose similar practices in other States. Americans should be asking how different are these snipping procedures from abortions performed throughout clinics in the country. Unfortunately, there is little difference between these procedures. The practice of murdering viable, unborn children who can feel pain must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves and vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, even Kermit Gosnell's own defense attorney, having gone through all the evidence at trial, said:

I've come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad

determiner. It should be more like 16, 17 weeks. That would

be a far better thing, and I think the law should be changed

to that. I think pro-choice would have still the right to

choose, but they've got to choose quicker.

We are talking here, Madam Speaker, about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we will use the balance of our time.

No, Madam Speaker. I'm not just yet ready to close, but if my colleague is ready to close--

Is the gentlewoman from New York ready to close? I thought that was the question she was asking.

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

Madam Speaker, as advances in medical science result in improved treatments and personalized medicine, the development of unborn children is further understood. Doctors can perform lifesaving surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the pregnancy than ever before.

When a baby is born prematurely, medical innovation is increasing the likelihood of that baby's survival. Babies born as early as 20 weeks post-fertilization are being cared for in neonatal units across the country.

By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. The baby responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling from it.

As Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, who is considered the leading expert in the field of fetal pain, stated in a report accepted by a Federal judge as expert testimony:

It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability

to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not

earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more

intense than that perceived by term newborns or older

children.

Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and injections. Recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgeries.

According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to a painful dismemberment abortion, which involves inserting a long steel tool into the woman and grabbing, usually an arm or a leg, tearing it from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. The procedure is repeated as the baby is torn, limb from limb, until his or her entire body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. The dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the second trimester.

Another abortion procedure involves injecting digoxin and/or potassium chloride into the baby's heart, which induces cardiac arrest, and the baby's killed.

Madam Speaker, it's important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' It is a heart-wrenching, painful procedure that tears a baby limb from limb before crushing his or her head, or it is a poisonous chemical injection.

A March 2013 poll conducted by a polling company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger.

Supporters included 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain.

Madam Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the womb is performed in our country. That is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn children from this excruciating pain.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the evidence of the unborn pain research.

Madam Speaker, I now reserve the balance of my time.

Fetal Pain: The Evidence

[From www.doctorsonfetalpain.org, Mar. 14, 2011]

The eleven points below summarize the substantial medical

and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by

20 weeks after fertilization.

1: Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization and

nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical

plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.

Madam Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well and as our colleague from Connecticut has acknowledged, the House has passed a bill to take care of the issue of student loan rates doubling on July 1; however, the Senate has refused to act on the bill. What we passed was what the President asked for in his budget, and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue and doesn't support it anymore.

The House has done its job. We're now waiting for the Senate and the President to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. We've not been frivolous about this. We are not ignoring the issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to point out that none of the Members on the other side of the aisle have even acknowledged the pain that unborn children feel or the fact that half of those babies that are being murdered are little girls.

Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It's sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for.

Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants--many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability--life is exactly what they've been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us.

One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in America's history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.

May we, in love, defend the unborn. May we, in humility, confront this national sin. And may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings, but even animals because we value life so much. However, there are

many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic for more than 1 million unborn babies every year.

There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.

This bipartisan bill is 4 years in the making, and I could not have had a better partner than my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

He began this process 4 years ago when he led us into the countryside to have eight field hearings across this great Nation. We followed up those field hearings with a series of 11 audit hearings on every single policy under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture.

In all, we held 40 hearings on every aspect of this FARRM Bill. The result is legislation that calls for reduced spending, smaller government, and commonsense reform.

The committee has held two markups of this essential bill, the first, last Congress, and one last month. Both of those markups lasted for more than 12 hours each. We considered over 200 amendments in total. In the end, we achieved a large bipartisan margin of support. The vote tally this year was 36-10, with 23 out of 25 Republicans and 13 out of 21 Democrats supporting it.

Some of my colleagues were amazed by the duration of the markup; but I came to Congress to legislate, and an important part of the legislative process is an open and fair debate. The Speaker shares that sentiment, and I hope during the debate of the amendments to the FARRM Act, we'll let the body work its will, then we'll vote for final passage.

The FARRM Act is different for many reasons. There is a reason that we put reform in the title. This is the most reform-minded bill in decades. It repeals outdated policies, while reforming, streamlining, and consolidating over 100 government programs.

It reforms the SNAP Act, also known as the food stamp program, for the first time since the welfare reforms of 1996; and it makes tremendous reforms to the farm programs.

The Agriculture Committee and the agriculture community have voluntarily worked together to make these reforms and to contribute to deficit reduction. Every part of this bill is a part of the solution to Washington's spending problems. We save the American taxpayer nearly $40 billion, which is almost seven times the amount of cuts to these programs under sequestration.

Regarding reforms to traditional farm programs, first of all, we eliminate direct payments. They cost taxpayers $5 billion a year. They were payments that people received every year, regardless of the market conditions and whether or not they farmed.

Instead, we take a more market-oriented approach to policy, where there is no support when market prices are high. We encourage responsible risk management where farmers are able to plan for catastrophic events.

In addition to eliminating direct payments, we repeal the ACRE Act, the disaster program for crops, and the countercyclical program. My philosophy from the beginning of the FARRM Bill process has been that these programs had to be based on market economies. They had to work for

all crops in all regions of the country. Our bill achieves this, while also saving $23 billion, which is a record 36 percent spending reduction.

In conservation, a subject near and dear to my heart, we streamline the delivery of these incredibly important programs. During our hearings, we learned that conservation programs had grown in number and complication, often acting as a deterrent for the adoption of these voluntary, incentive-based programs. Therefore, the FARRM Act eliminates and consolidates 23 duplicative and overlapping programs into 13, which saves nearly $7 billion.

We authorize and strengthen and fully pay for livestock disaster assistance that is incredibly important to our livestock producers during devastating droughts, such as the ones we're experiencing recently.

The bill invests in core specialty crop initiatives like Specialty Block Grants, Plant Pest and Disease Management programs; and the FARRM Act also maintains our investment in agricultural research.

You know, my friends, I've had a lot of my colleagues ask me, Frank, why do you get so excited about these issues? Why do you get so stirred up? You're usually a pretty calm, laid-back fellow.

Well, let me tell you, I come from a part of the country that was the abyss of the Great Depression and the drought of the 1930s. Some of you may have seen Mr. Burns' documentary about the Dust Bowl. Those are my constituents. Those were my relatives in Roger Mills County, as well as the panhandle.

I was raised by a generation, my grandparents, who were young men and women during the Great Depression, who lived through that drought. They were scarred forever.

My maternal grandfather cosigned my first farm lease, cosigned my note at the bank so that I could start farming. But he was convinced, till the day he died, just as my other grandfather was, the Great Depression was coming back; it was coming back.

My parents were young men and women in the fifties, and they went through the drought of the fifties, far worse than the drought of the thirties. To the day he died, my father was convinced that it would never rain again.

And I came home from college in 1982 just in time to observe the collapse in agricultural land prices. I was raised by the generation that suffered through the thirties and the fifties.

I came home to watch the Vietnam generation be destroyed, farmers be destroyed by things beyond their control in the early 1980s. That's why I get so worked up on this policy.

The misery of the thirties, the misery of the eighties, economically, was not an accident. It was policy mistakes in the twenties and thirties that led to that agony. It was policy mistakes in the seventies and eighties that led to that agony.

Now, you say, Frank, you're excited, you're getting worked up. Look at the 1930 census for Roger Mills County. There were 14,000 people living in my home county. By the 1940 census there were 7,000 people living in my home county. And we've just now made it back to the mid- 3,000s.

You don't have that kind of economic devastation, depopulation, suffering by accident. And that's why I'm here; that's why I'm working with my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Peterson. That's why I've worked with Republicans, Democrats alike for years now to get to this point. That's why I want to work with all of you.

I cannot make it rain. There may be people in this town who say they can make it rain, but I cannot make it rain. But in my tenure as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I can make sure we pass a comprehensive FARRM Bill that does not repeat the mistakes of the 1920s and -30s, does not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s and -80s.

I will not be a part of inflicting on future generations what was inflicted on what I call that generation of Vietnam veterans who came home to farm and, instead, went to the bankruptcy auctions, or my grandparents' generation, whose young men and women were wiped out in the 1930s. I will not be a part of that.

So I will work with all of you to try and improve this draft that attempts to produce a safety net that is workable, that is efficient, both for rural America and producers, but also for consumers.

I ask you to work with me in that regard. I ask you to do the right thing. I ask you to avoid the mistakes of the past. I ask you to look at the language, to study the language, and be good, responsible legislators.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Subcommittee Chairman Conaway from the great State of Texas.

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee chairman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a subcommittee chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy to the gentleman from Washington State, Doc Hastings.

I recognize the gentleman from Washington's concerns about the one-size-fits-all approach of the FDA. In fact, this was among the several concerns we raised during debate in the House when the Food Safety Modernization Act was under consideration.

I share his belief that, if the FDA is going to be given the task of telling farmers how to farm, it should do so after a thorough examination of the risks of the different types of fruits and vegetables and then, based on the best available science, consider the growing methods and the conditions of individual commodities when developing regulations.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would encourage the FDA to reevaluate the proposed regulations, including docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921-0001, and make the necessary revisions to ensure that they meet this purpose.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a home of amazingly diverse agriculture, Mr. LaMalfa.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chair, I would note that I am the last speaker and would conclude, and would ask if the gentleman would yield me an extra minute or two.

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

Madam Chair, we've heard some very good debate this evening about the merits and the challenges that we face in putting this bipartisan bill together. I'd like to take just a moment to focus on the nutrition title and the spirit and the logic that went into crafting this.

The focus of the committee was that the savings should be achieved across all areas of the farm bill, and that $40 billion, approximately, we have saved does achieve savings in the commodity title, the conservation title, as well as the nutrition title. Everybody under the jurisdiction of the farm bill contributes to the reforms.

Now, in the nutrition title for just a moment, I just want to stress to my colleagues the committee tried to achieve savings in a way that would not deny an individual who was qualified under present law by income or assets from receiving help. We just simply say in the committee draft that things like automatic food stamps, categorical eligibility, something that's evolved out of the 1996 welfare reform, we simply say everybody needs to show they qualify, and we'll help you.

The LIHEAP program, where States in some cases give as little as $1 to help their citizens pay their home heating costs that triggers a whole month's worth of food stamps, we say in the bill: States, you've got to give $20 to trigger that.

The goal of the committee was never to work hardship on anyone. The goal of the committee, in a time of $16 trillion national debt, annual trillion-dollar deficits, was to achieve savings across the board. But it requires that the folks who need help come in and demonstrate they qualify. If you don't like the asset level or the income level, that's a different debate. We just simply say if you need the help, show us you qualify and we'll help you. That's a $20.5 billion savings, according to CBO. Will that be the way it's implemented? I don't know. But we operate by CBO scores, and there's almost $40 billion in overall savings in all areas of the farm bill.

I would challenge all my friends, if every other committee in every other jurisdiction would achieve these kinds of savings across the board, we'd be in a different situation with our operating annual deficit.

The Ag Committee has done its work, and we've done it in a thoughtful way. Help us over the course of the next few days with the amendment process. Don't, by affection, offer amendments simply to prevent the process from happening. Don't do things that are intended not to make the bill a better piece of legislation, but to prevent it. Be good legislators; be thoughtful legislators. Do what's right, whether it's to help the people raise the food, or that other part of our society that needs help on a month-to-month basis. Do them all right. I have faith in you. I believe through good debate and good discussion on good amendments, perfections will be made. A consensus will be achieved. We'll move forward. I have faith in you, my colleagues.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 1947.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for 40 years I've been marching for this women's choice bill, but we seem never to finish with it. It's something that people like to drag up and bring out.

In that regard, I want to ask the women of America to think of two things. First, I want you to remember the panel that Chairman Issa put together last year to discuss contraception and whether or not women should have access to it. If you recall, that panel was made up entirely of men. There was a young woman, a graduate of law school, who wanted to speak that day; but she was found to be unworthy, unable to speak. Indeed, her virtue, her character, everything else about her was assailed because she had tried to do what many of us know we can do here, and that is speak.

Think about another thing now. Think about the Judiciary Committee; 22--now 23--all white guys turning down every amendment to try to preserve women's health, to try to preserve women's psyche, and do anything in the world to do this--and to try to discuss that this bill, as my colleague vainly tried to do, that this is unconstitutional. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows the Senate's not going to take this up. This is purely window dressing.

And as I do here often, I want to remind everybody that it costs $24 million a week to run the House of Representatives. We've spent over $54 billion almost already now just trying to repeal the health care bill.

When in the world are we going to get to work? 2\1/2\ weeks from now, the interest rate on college loans will double. Are we doing anything about that? Not a thing on Earth. Do we care about the people who are out of work? Do we care about the people who are facing loss of their food stamps? No. We care more about war on women. Women of America, keep those two panels before your mind forever. Those are the deciders--the men on Issa's panel, the men on the Judiciary Committee.

Now, in State Houses all over this country, and in Governors' mansions and Halls of Congress, the majority's antichoice agenda is driven by men in blue suits and red ties who seem to believe that once they get elected to something, they have a right to play doctor. I would like to think about what they have done over the last years to remind my fellow American women.

Already, because of the majority's efforts, women in eight States are required to undergo an ultrasound before they can exercise their constitutionally protected right to a safe and legal abortion--an ultrasound that is not medically necessary, an ultrasound that is medically contradicted, and an ultrasound for which they are required themselves to pay. As we speak, the legislators in the State of Wisconsin have passed a similar measure through the State House and are awaiting the enactment into law.

Most telling is right now more States have a waiting period for abortions

than a waiting period to buy a gun. Let me say that again. More States have a waiting period for abortions--a constitutionally protected procedure--than have a waiting period to buy a gun.

Now, here in Congress, the majority conducted a hearing at the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last year that I have already spoken of. There were five men and zero women. As you know, they talked about Sandra Fluke and all the vituperation and hatred that was poured down on her because she wanted to speak.

But just last week--I think this past week--the majority took it a whole lot further. For the first time, during the committee, after it was all passed and gone, before it goes to the Rules Committee, the sponsor of this bill made one of those comments like Todd Akin had made. And I think if you scratch an awful lot of guys on that committee, they all feel the same way because it keeps coming up over and over. You can't get pregnant, they say, if you're raped. They believe that in the bottom of their heart, and some of them were doctors. But during the committee amendments to include the exceptions for the health of the mother and victims of rape and incest, they were rejected along party lines.

Mr. Franks has been taken off the bill, and for the first time, in my recollection, unanimous consent has to be given here to ask a woman-- they have found a Republican woman who would take this bill--off a completely other committee and allow her to manage the bill. If that is not a first, I don't know what is. And if that is not PR, I don't know what is. And if that is not simply trying to fool you, I don't know what else that is.

As Mr. Franks' remark and the extreme nature of his bill became clear, they realized they were about to anger the American women even more than they had last fall, and you know how that turned out at the election. Instead of abandoning the legislation and respecting a woman's right to choose, they decided to try to make changes to the underlying bill, after it had already passed through committee, and assign a woman outside the committee to manage a bill on the floor.

Such a cowardly move is an insult to the intelligence of women in America. You are supposed to believe this was all done well and properly. No amount of window dressing is going to change the fact that you are severely trying to restrict a woman's right to choose with today's bill. I don't think anybody makes any bones about that.

The majority has argued the legislation is in response to new science, even though if there has ever been a House of Representatives that cared not a whit for science, I can't imagine they would come even close to this one. When a fetus feels pain is the new idea. As my colleague, Mr. Nadler, has previously made clear, their so-called ``new findings'' are nothing more than the marginal views that fly in the face of established science. In fact, one of the experts upon which the majority relies has testified that science for and against fetal pain is most uncertain.

The fact of the matter is that today's legislation is unconstitutional and contains a narrow and adequate exception for the life of a woman and a victim of rape and incest. No man on any of those committees, no man on any of those panels, is ever going to have to face that problem himself of rape and incest. How strange it is that they know the precise answer for people who are victimized by it.

Many serious health conditions actually materialize or worsen after the 20-week mark in a pregnancy and can seriously compromise the health of the mother. A physician has to be able to provide the best care for their patients; and in cases where a woman's health is exacerbated by pregnancy, politicians have no right in intruding in the doctor-patient relationship and criminalizing those trying to protect their patients' lives and safety.

Furthermore, the majority's requirement that a victim of rape or incest report the crime to authorities before receiving an abortion effectively prevents many victims from exercising the right to choose. More than half of all rape victims, as we know, don't report, and that is a sad thing.

The requirement in today's bill ensures that a woman who has been a victim of rape or incest faces massive barriers to exercising her right to safe and legal reproductive health care. Mr. Speaker, from requiring women to undergo mandatory ultrasounds to applying police reporting requirements for victims of rape, the majority has made it very clear that they don't trust women. In fact, it came up at the Judiciary Committee that one of the reasons they needed to report it to police is because women would lie. I think they make an exception in that case for their sisters, their daughters, their mothers, perhaps. It is just the rest of us who can't be trusted.

Try as he might, no man will ever understand the choice that faces a young woman who is told that she suffers from severe valvular heart disease and that, if she carries a child to term, her life and the life of that child are at risk, or the choice of a woman who is violently raped and would be reminded of the crime against her every moment of every day if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

I urge my colleagues to respect the established science on this issue and the constitutional right of every American woman. Reject today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has other requests for time.

Well, that sort of leaves me uninformed. But I want to introduce the previous question before I do my closing. And I'm hoping you are prepared to close. Is that correct?

No, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

That was the question I had asked you. I am prepared to. Mr. Connolly is my last speaker.

Not until I find out if we're prepared to close.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Congress should not be standing around while this is going on. Congress should also not be standing around

while college loan rates are doubling and we have so many people out of work.

I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney.

Madam Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act next month, the undergraduate students across this country will see a doubling of their student loan interest rates.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, on July 1, young women in college face a doubling of Federal student loan interest rates; but instead of legislating the rights of our daughters and granddaughters to access safe and legal reproductive care, we should be ensuring that the cost of college doesn't skyrocket at the end of the month.

When it comes to the most personal and important decisions a woman will ever make, we deserve the privacy and freedom to make the decision that's right for us. No matter how many women the majority trots out to advance their agenda, their attempt to take away our reproductive rights will not stand.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 266 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, H.R. 1797, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, when the majority began this Congress, it began with the idea, in their language, that they would adhere to fiscal responsibility and to constitutionality--in fact, we read the Constitution on the floor of this body--and that they had learned the lessons from the election slaughtering in 2012, and that is to stop the assault on women's health care. But, oh, no. Here we are today with a bill, H.R. 1797, that violates the Congressional Budget Act, that violates the Constitution, and that violates the doctor-patient relationship that a woman has with her doctor, and we haven't focused on jobs.

So, when you look at H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it would impose a ban across the country on abortion after 20 weeks. Aside from ignoring medical realities and placing the lives of mothers with serious medical conditions at risk through governmental interference with the doctor-patient relationship, the underlying bill also includes reporting requirements that, according to the Congressional Budget Act, which it would violate, would add costs to local law enforcement.

With a total of 25 States introducing 64 similar abortion-ban measures in the

last 3 years, this bill is yet another assault on women's reproductive rights and is blatantly unconstitutional.

Abortion care in this country is a private, medical decision that's made between a woman and her health care provider. Those are the only people who should be in the room. And yet here in this legislation they've created just a narrow exception that doesn't even take into account the risk to a woman's health and would subject physicians to criminal penalties for caring for their patients.

H.R. 1797 contains unreasonable, unjustified penalties for doctors, including 5 years in jail, and would have a negative impact on abortion care and reproductive health care all across the country. By jeopardizing and criminalizing abortion care, we limit the options women have to receive comprehensive reproductive health care. And these limitations could lead women to access abortion care that is both unsafe and dangerous to their health.

I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the other side if they would care to address the question of whether this closed rule means that there will not be a single amendment or alternative offered to this bill, which has a profound effect on women's health and reproductive rights. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she cares to answer that question.

Well, reclaiming my time, under the rule, it's the case that the bill I believe that we'll vote on today for final passage has not followed regular order, and it has been rewritten after its adoption in the Judiciary Committee. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes a 20-week ban citing the threats these laws pose to women's health.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr. Peters).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's very clear to me that the underlying bill, in fact, does violate the Congressional Budget Act. It imposes an unfunded mandate on local police departments for the work that they do.

Now, it's this crowd on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who is opposed to unfunded mandates. Nevertheless, it's also true that, in fact, the decision to receive an abortion in this country, particularly late in a pregnancy, is an intensely personal decision, and yet it's the suits on the other side of the aisle who've decided that it's their decision to interfere with a woman's right to make those choices between herself and her doctor. It's a decision that none of us wants to face and one that legislators, particularly Members of Congress, should not interfere with.

The bill also cites the Constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the House. And yet it is blatantly-- blatantly--unconstitutional, completely inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

And so I'd like to yield 15 seconds, again, to the gentlewoman from the other side to ask her whether, under the definitions in this bill, what does it mean to not have protection of the life of the mother include psychological or emotional condition?

Well, the gentlewoman can't answer that, and so I suppose I could ask her, as well, if the Speaker would allow, I yield, again, 15 seconds to the gentlewoman, if this bill cites the Constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the House, and yet it's blatantly unconstitutional, do House rules allow it to be considered, allow H.R. 1797 even to be considered on the floor of this House if it's unconstitutional?

I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know that the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the other side would prefer to yield and move on with a bill that violates the Budget Control Act, violates the Constitution, and violates the relationship between a doctor and a patient; and yet the decision to receive an abortion is a woman's, and a woman's alone.

In addition, H.R. 1797 infringes on the right of the District of Columbia to make decisions about the way in which it cares for its residents. I mean, the majority is all over the place--interfering with the District of Columbia, interfering with women's rights to make the decision by themselves, and actually stepping on the toes of local law enforcement to impose costs on them to enforce an unconstitutional bill. Thank goodness it won't become law.

The sponsor of this bill is certainly entitled to his beliefs--and it was a ``his,'' because on the Judiciary Committee that considered this, there's not a single Republican woman who had the chance to consider this on the Judiciary Committee. And yet the role of the government should not be to limit access to health care or to limit the freedom and liberties of the public. We should recognize that this decision is one best left to a woman, in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her faith.

Women across this country don't rely on Congress and politicians to advise them on mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, or maternal health needs; and abortion is no different. As with these other procedures, we should make comprehensive health care available to all women and allow them, with the consult of their health provider and loved ones, to decide when, how, and why they take care of their health.

Americans, including women, sent a clear message last November at the polls. They're tired of Congress meddling in their business and taking extreme and divisive legislation targeted at assaulting women's health.

And so with that, I'd actually yield another 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she would care to respond: Whether today, given that 40 percent of women are primary breadwinners in their household, but women continue to face workplace challenges,

pay inequity, and other barriers to fully contribute to our economy, would you agree that this bill does not address those economic challenges for women, or create jobs, and is an exercise in political theater at best?

With that, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman to respond.

Reclaiming my time, I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I guess I just have a few questions that I will put out there on the table.

The American people want us to work to address the Nation's most urgent priorities, like creating jobs and strengthening the economy. I wonder if the Speaker at all can inform us what jobs this particular bill creates.

Under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest victims, would they have to report even if their life is in danger from the perpetrator? Curious question. Does this bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims, since 54 percent of these rape victims do not report rape due to intimidation and embarrassment? Under the definitions in this bill, what does it mean not to have protection of the life of the mother included in psychological and emotional conditions? Does the bill disqualify, again, rape victims? Is it the case that the bill redefines what qualifies as incest by only applying it to a minor? So an adult, who has been victimized by a relative since childhood and who gets pregnant, is not allowed to have an abortion or a pregnancy with that relative? We have a lot of questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, women across America are tired of having their rights assaulted. They're tired of having their health care decisions taken from them. We need to vote down H.R. 1797.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman, who, by the way, has done an outstanding job putting this bill together. And with the exception of maybe some differences on the SNAP title of the bill, I have to say that if I was still chairman, I wouldn't have a bill that's much different than what the chairman and I have put together. And maybe one of the reasons for that is that my family has a similar background to Mr. Lucas' family. My grandfather went through the Depression.

My father almost got bankrupted by Ezra Taft Benson and some of the nonsense that went on during that period of time. So the chairman is right. Policy makes a big difference in agriculture, and I stand with him in never going back to a time where we don't give our farmers and ranchers the safety net they need to operate in a very risky and now capital intensive business.

So today we're debating a new 5-year farm bill. As the chairman said, the process has gone on long enough. We started the debate on this when I was still chairman, and it's time for us to pass a bill.

This farm bill gives farmers and ranchers the necessary tools to provide American consumers with the safest, most abundant and most affordable food supply in the world. The bill includes farm, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy and specialty crop programs.

With roughly 16 million American jobs tied to agriculture, the farm bill is a jobs bill. The rural economy remained strong during our Nation's financial crisis, and in my part of the world it was agriculture that kind of kept us going through that process. This is why the farm bill is so important. Failing to pass a new 5-year farm bill could potentially devastate our rural economy. Why would we jeopardize the one part of our economy that has been, and continues to be, working?

I often tell people that the Agriculture Committee is probably the least partisan of all the committees in Congress. And that doesn't happen by accident. We listen to each other, we try to understand each other, work together, and at the end of the day, have the best interests of our constituents in mind.

The bill before us today is a compromise that reflects that tradition. It's a compromise between commodities and regions, urban and rural Members. I didn't get everything I wanted; Chairman Lucas didn't get everything he wanted, but that's how the legislative process is supposed to work.

The bill makes major reforms to farm programs. Repealing direct payments saves taxpayers nearly $40 billion a year, and it ensures that farmers won't get a government subsidy for doing nothing. Instead, producers are given the choice between two countercyclical farm safety programs, addressing either price declines or revenue losses, which only support farmers during difficult times. The bill also sets new income requirements so individual millionaires won't receive farm payments and continues the no-cost sugar program.

H.R. 1947 also makes significant reforms to dairy programs, the result of more than 4 years of work that we've done on the committee and compromise within the dairy industry. The new dairy safety net will address the volatility of the dairy market, help consumers by making all milk prices more stable and hopefully eliminate the price spikes that have been normal in today's marketplace.

The 2008 farm bill was the first farm bill to address the growing demand for fresh fruits and vegetables, local foods and organics. The 2013 FARRM Bill

continues this investment by increasing funding for specialty crop block grants, providing support for the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion programs and authorizing the very first organic check-off for research and promotion.

We also recognize the challenges facing many beginning farmers by including support for outreach and education to beginning, socially disadvantaged and military veteran farmers and ranchers. The bill also streamlines and reforms current conservation programs, better targeting resources to allow farmers and ranchers to continue to preserve our valuable natural resources.

Now, a lot of attention has been given to the bill's cuts to nutrition programs, more than $20 billion over 10 years in this bill. Personally, I would have preferred that we updated the income and asset limits in the current SNAP program so that we would have treated everybody in the country the same. We've looked at that, we weren't able to come to consensus, so we didn't move in that direction.

So we have cuts to nutrition spending in this bill, and they've received most of the attention in this regard, but we also like to point out that there's additional support for TEFAP, increased funding for Community Food Projects with a focus on low-income communities, and it provides more resources to help USDA's anti-trafficking efforts.

So, while I think it's ridiculous to cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of nutrition programs, as some Members have called for, I also don't think it's realistic to say that we can't cut one penny from these programs because clearly there isn't a government program that couldn't stand some reductions. So I think what we've done here at the end of the day is responsible reform that's a middle ground that will allow us to continue and to complete the work on this bill.

So I know we're going to have a lot of amendments I guess starting tomorrow, but it's my opinion, and it's the chairman's opinion, that in order for us to get a bill conferenced, we need to go through this process and stick together on the committee so we can have a bill that can be conferenced and get this bill signed before September 30 when the current law expires.

We need to keep this a bipartisan bill and not stray too far from what was approved in committee. I know that compromise is rare around here, but it's what is needed to finally get a new 5-year farm bill completed, and that is our objective.

So, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time and yield back.

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the second-ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre.)

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of our subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a former member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas).

Madam Chair, I'm now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma.