Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time the Speaker has charged us for these unanimous consent requests thus far?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time has been charged against us for these unanimous consent requests thus far?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Would it be in order for me to ask unanimous consent that the time that has been charged against us be restored?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I didn't make the request yet.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for a unanimous consent request.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.

Cleaver) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

So 4\1/2\ minutes total for all of the unanimous consent requests?

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.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) for a unanimous consent request.

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. 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.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, it's my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

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

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.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.

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).

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. 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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.

I object to that.

There is objection.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I object. When I receive the time, I will offer an explanation.

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

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

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. 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.

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.

I would not yield for that purpose.

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. 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. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for that purpose.

I do not know that the gentleman has been yielded that time by his manager.

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. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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?

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?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

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.

Parliamentary inquiry.

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?

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.

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. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

I make a point of order.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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.

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.