Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, tonight we engage this House to talk about some commonsense legislation that would, in fact, allow the American people and this Congress to understand more about rules and regulations as they are presented that the American people have to live under.

My amendment requires that an agency submitting a report on any proposed Federal rule include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of the implementation of any rules that fit within the REINS Act.

This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because many times rules and regulations are implemented without regard for what the impact would be on the people who have to live under them. We believe this is common sense. We believe this happens in businesses every day. We're asking for a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the rules that are written, combined with the impact that they would have upon job losses, whether it be the government or the free enterprise system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, we see 25 million people struggling in this country as a result of that same attitude that the Democrat Party and the President has about having jobs go off into the past and looking to the future.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mr. Chairman, tonight, we've had three new first-term Members of Congress who have come on the floor to talk about things that are important to them, and it's a balance. It's making a difference so that people back home have confidence in the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the Federal Government and that Congress knows how we can react and act upon those.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the life of America as we recognize that Republicans are back in Washington to try and grow our economy and bring jobs back to the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, for 12 years Republicans worked hard on doubling the size of GDP, and we did that from a GDP of $6.5 trillion to over $14 trillion. Over the last 5\1/2\ years, we have seen our President embark on an agenda that will reduce not just GDP, but jobs and job growth in America. We now stand at a GDP of just over 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this means that jobs, as we saw this last month when we saw the jobs report that came out, of some 700,000 jobs that have been created in America this year, of that number, about 600,000 are part- time jobs. America cannot make ends meet as workers, as families, as communities if we have a President who stands in the way of the free enterprise system and job growth.

Mr. Speaker, I urge House Republicans to continue their work on behalf of the American people for American jobs and to grow our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Michael Burgess, from Lewisville, Texas. Dr. Burgess is a brand-new member of the Rules Committee and came to the Rules Committee because of his understanding, not just of medicine and health care as a doctor and a provider for many, many years, but also because of his grasp of knowledge of this health care bill which is an enormous bill, which, while we are talking about the economic consequences primarily today on the marketplace where this bill is causing employers to not hire more employees, is causing more employers to take to part-time worker status their employees because of the extreme ramifications of this, what was called Affordable Care Act, known as the ObamaCare Act.

And today we are here for the simple purpose to say what the President of the United States has now recognized, without comment, and done, not just in the middle of the night on a Web site, but even done on a weekend, and

I believe when the President potentially was out of the country.

We're now dealing with the United States Congress speaking our viewpoints about that bill. And the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, is going to consume time today where he's going to talk about also the problems that physicians have, that patients have, that we look at from a family perspective of trying to make sure we get health care in an affordable way without ruining it.

But today I'd like to focus, if I can, my comments on that it's not a surprise that we have a problem. It's not a surprise that we have a problem with this ObamaCare, or is known as the Affordable Care Act, not just because of the concept that it is, and not just because of how it was run through this Congress, but really, the concept that the Democrats are trying to overlay on the American people a system of government-controlled health care that does not work.

It does not work and will not work in America because America has a vibrant free-enterprise system whereby a person, whether they're an employer or an employee or just as a regular citizen, could contract to get the health care that they would choose to have.

And the reason why health care has become more expensive is that the Federal Government does not pay their fair share for Medicare or Medicaid. This United States Congress does not adequately pay their fair share for our seniors or for poor people, and so what happens is it's taken out on people that work. It is showing up in their cost of health care.

So rather than trying to fix their problem and their responsibility, what President Obama and Democrats did is stick it, more of it, the cost, and a system on the American worker, rather than living up to their responsibility.

And we are here today because the President of the United States got worried because he's hearing so many people come back and say this won't work in America; this is harming job creation; this is harming businesses that want to employ people, and it's causing a huge distortion in the marketplace.

So what the President did, literally, without comment, except on a Web site, he said, we will back off this for 1 year.

Now, we heard testimony last night at the Rules Committee, everything is okay. Everything is okay. We just are trying to hear feedback from business, and we're going to back off for a year.

That's not really the case. The facts of the case are that this administration, from top to bottom, has failed to provide information to the American people and to business about how they intended for their socialist, government-run plan to work. And they have not provided leadership for 3 years. They've not answered questions. They've not made decisions. They've not been open about how it would really work.

So business has the problem of a legal side. They have a legal responsibility.

Now, you won't have the White House come out and admit this, but they have failed to do their job. And so business has a legal requirement on them of providing notice. They have notice that they have to provide to consumers under State laws and under Federal law.

The facts of the case are they couldn't figure it out because they did not know enough about how this government-run health care system would work. They didn't understand legal consequences. They don't understand reporting consequences. They don't understand consequences because this government is so big and so powerful that they control too much of our life.

Now, in this equation, we also see where a number of unions have now let their opinion be known, and they are directly on the side of this bill today because now they have learned more about this bill, and they are worried. They're worried sick about not just the health care for their members, but how it will individually affect their own families' lives.

The facts of the case are simple. The Democrat Party here is trying to do everything they can do to cover up what is a monster mistake, an inability by the Obama administration to effectively lead on a government-run health care system.

Their only back-up point is to say, if you do this, you're going to put everything in jeopardy. My response is, thank goodness. It needs to be in jeopardy.

What they have done is, effectively, picked on, by doing what they've done, individuals who are not as powerful as groups of individuals collectively under business or under labor unions.

We need to look at the entire scope of this. What is bad for business is superbad for individuals. And individuals are going to find themselves at the behest of working with the IRS on their health care.

They're going to work with the IRS, an organization that is incapable of effectively delivering a fair product and rationally following the law. They think they're above the law. They think that they can control our lives, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they can.

So there's far more to this entire debate than simply we're trying to go against precedent of what this President has within his authorities or responsibilities or precedents. Far bigger than that.

What we're here to say today is this Obama health care plan, and his decision that he has made about not moving forward with the law, is a selective enforcement, and it's really their fault. It is their fault for a lack of leadership. It is their fault because they passed a bill that was entirely done by the United States Senate.

And we agreed up in the Rules Committee, no Republican in this House, that we would simply take it as it was, without understanding it, without making it workable and without ever understanding the consequences, because the bottom line is Democrats have been trying to do this for 50 years. And what they're really after is a single-payer system, where the government literally, completely makes every decision, not some of the decisions.

So Republicans are on the floor of the House today to say we ought to repeal the whole thing. We're going to start by this action today, and we're going to follow it up by saying we ought to give individuals the same opportunity to evade this that the President has given to special interests and to business.

It's a sad day today, but let's not twist the facts of the case. A government-run health care system is, at it's very basis, a beginning of socialism in medicine, and we oppose that.

I thank the Speaker for the time. I thank the gentleman for the time.

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.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am not yielding for that purpose.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it's important for us to understand what's in the bill, and I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have no additional speakers except myself when I close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I believe that the gentleman from Oklahoma represents not just the conscience of my party, but also of the Members of the House of Representatives. I think he well and faithfully is attempting to do his job; and it is this body today that will have an opportunity, after hearing the gentleman from Oklahoma speak about not just his desire, but his leadership on behalf of the Agriculture Committee.

As he approached the Rules Committee last night, he spoke very clearly and eloquently and said it is his desire to have the farm bill farm bill, as he calls it, to be able to be before this body today where we can pass good and wise farm bill policy.

He also stated, before not only all the Members, but also in testimony that he presented to the committee, that it is his intent to follow up today's bill, farm bill farm bill, with a nutrition program bill that he would bring to the Rules Committee for this House to consider.

This man has worked on a bipartisan basis and, I believe, should have the admiration and respect of this body. But more importantly, the gentleman placed his word of what he's trying to do before this body. I think he is a sincere and honest man.

It is my intent, as the chairman of the Rules Committee, as it was last night, to say to this body today, this bill, farm bill farm bill, that is before you does appropriate and good things for farmers and for people who make a living and provide this country with the agriculture and products it needs. We are trying to make sure that that is faithfully and well done today.

I believe the gentleman from Oklahoma deserves the respect of this body, and I would ask for each and every one of us to please vote ``yes'' on this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 11, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1613 and H.R. 2231 pursuant to House Resolution 274, amendment numbered 1 printed in part A of House Report 113-131 and amendments numbered 5 and 10 printed in part B of that report be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

If the gentleman will yield under his reservation, with the adoption of this modification of the explanation of waivers, I would say to him that what is contained in the report is going to be accurate.

What was printed the other day as the final report from the Rules Committee before it came to the floor was, in fact, not accurate. The gentleman knows and does understand that there were several modifications that were made as a result of the final approval of the Rules Committee print.

Then we discovered there were some typos and some inaccurate figures that were presented. The gentleman knows that there have been previous times when the gentleman's amendment from Louisiana has been offered in reports and has been voted on and we made that consistent.

I appreciate the gentleman asking me.

Once again, yielding to the gentleman's question, I appreciate the gentleman not only coming to the floor, but making sure that we work together on an understanding of what the final package will look like.

I will state once again, and I appreciate the gentleman's clarification, what the Rules Committee did is made an agreement of what would be made in order and there was a mistake therein. We are simply, Mr. Speaker, asking for unanimous consent on a bipartisan basis, we believe with the gentleman who will consent, to modify the report to where it accurately denotes the amendments that were made in order and any wording, including grammatical misspellings. That's what we're trying to do here.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The question really before us today, Mr. Speaker, is plain and simple, and that is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 271?

I have great respect not only for the gentleman from Iowa but for the gentleman from Massachusetts. Yesterday, we sat through a very, very long committee hearing in which we considered over 200 amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee.

I believe that what we have done with the rule that is in reference and is being questioned here on the floor is not only a very fair and bipartisan approach, but we took this actually from the Ag Committee, from the gentleman from Minnesota--the ranking member--and the chairman of the committee, from Iowa, both of whom have not only extensive farm backgrounds but also extensive service here in the House, both as chairmen of the Agriculture Committee, to the people of the United States.

The bill was brought to the Rules Committee on a bipartisan basis. We talked about the amendments that the committee felt were worthy. We worked extensively with the committee and with other committees of jurisdiction. We had Member after Member come to the Rules Committee in a fair and open process. We deliberated. The gentleman from Massachusetts knows that he, in some sense, got some satisfaction with how the process worked.

So, today, what we are here for is, yes, to talk about the amendments--some that were made in order and some which changed policy--but the essence of this is: Are we going to put a point of order against the bill? I think that the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the Rules Committee Report, yes, and the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

I think this is simply an opportunity for my friends to come to the floor in order to allow for more discussion and time--and I respect that. I respect that the gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings as a member of the Agriculture Committee and as a senior member of the Rules Committee, and I respect also those Members of the Democratic Caucus who have strong feelings about some changes that are taking place.

I admire my colleagues. I disagree. I do not believe in any way that there should be any point of order against the bill. I think it's open. I think it's fair. I think it's inclusive. I think it includes a wide- ranging group of ideas and thoughts that are directly germane to the appropriateness of the Agriculture Committee and other committees that have jurisdiction. I think the Rules Committee did an awesome job. I think we did this in a fair and open process. I think our product is good.

How would I characterize it? I think this is a fair rule that made 103 amendments from both sides of the aisle with 53 Democratic amendments and 50 Republican amendments in order. There were a number of bipartisan amendments. It's a fair rule that comes from a good process.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I encourage us to keep moving.

I thank the gentleman and respect the gentleman, and he knows this. We have been dear friends for many years on this committee. I know he wants more time, and I respect that.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution if necessary, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct. There is an amendment that was presented at the Rules Committee that has been made in order that essentially does what the gentlewoman says, and she'll have a

chance to vote for it or against it. What it says is the amendment ends eligibility of food stamps for those convicted who are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

So the gentlewoman and every Member of this body today will have a chance to say on record that it's okay if you're a convicted rapist, pedophile, or murderer, that it's okay for you to be eligible for food stamps in a program that does compete against mothers and children who, in these difficult times, you're seeing the Agriculture Committee try and set priorities about who should receive this government assistance.

This amendment has not been accepted yet, but every Member of this body will be able to help prioritize; and the amendment that the gentlewoman speaks of is about whether we will let rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, who are convicted felons, continue to receive food stamps. The gentlewoman is right. And today she will get her chance to help us prioritize these government programs about who should be receiving food stamps in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman for coming down to the floor, and I want to respond to the gentleman that what this bill is about is trying to make decisions about what we're going to do in difficult times.

There are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed as a result of the policies that President Obama has placed on this country. Millions of people cannot find work today. There are millions of people across this country who are denied opportunities because the job market out there is not growing. We're seeing rules and regulations. What is known as ObamaCare is causing employers to back away from hiring people. There is the President's inability to make a decision about a simple, most publicized and most looked-at pipeline that would employ thousands of people in this country and us use energy from our friends.

The President's inability to lead is what is causing this country to have massive unemployment and a GDP rate of about 1.5 percent. It is a nightmare for people.

So I do understand that we have those in our midst who are in trouble. I don't think this bill is ever aimed at, and we shouldn't try and say that it would be aimed at, the disabled or mothers with children. That's not what we're trying to accomplish here.

What we're trying to accomplish is to end the eligibility of food stamps for rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, those that compete against needy families. That's why you see members of the Democratic Party coming down here today saying we're going to take it away from other people. No. Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

Furthermore, under the current law, people who receive as little as $1 in energy benefits, $1 in State benefits, automatically qualify for SNAP payments.

This legislation that we're talking about today says if you're going to give away a Federal benefit, the State has to have some skin in the game. You can't just give away something that comes from somewhere else. This legislation closes the costly loopholes that have been out there. And without reform, you're going to continue to see dead people, illegal immigrants, lottery winners, and others who are still eligible for SNAP. That is what we are doing as we reform this bill today. We are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do to save the system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he has any further speakers or if he believes that we have now gotten to the end of this opportunity?

And I believe I have the right to close. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts for furthering his feelings that he wants to talk about this. It is true, there will be people dropped off the rolls. We're having to make decisions based upon money. There's a vote today--it has not been decided--whether rapists, pedophiles, or murderers will be eligible. Also, whether we will have people have to qualify on their own as opposed to some other consideration maybe that a State would put. And we're going to take off those who are lottery winners, illegal aliens, and people quite honestly who should have the money to pay for these things. That's what we're doing today. So in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business, which we're trying to do today, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for not only their vigorous support for the things that they believe in today on this important bill but also for their consideration, participation, and bipartisanship yesterday as the Rules Committee considered this important bill.

I believe it is important what we are doing in the House. I think doing our work on a bipartisan basis should draw the attention of the President of the United States, who has said he will veto this bill, veto the bill before we even see what it looks like. I think that we should understand that what we are trying to do is work together. So, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts, my very dear friend, 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, we've already had a lot of discussion about this awesome farm bill that comes to us today. H. Res. 271 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1947. This rule provides for discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and majority, both Republicans and Democrats who represent 700,000 people back home, to come together with their thoughts and ideas about how to make our farm policies and the things which are included in this bill even better, sustainable, and moving forward so that we can know that we have done our job.

This week, 230 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. The rule before us today provides for consideration of 103 of those amendments, 50 Republican and 53 Democrat or bipartisan amendments.

Many of the amendments submitted were duplicative, some violated the rules of the House, and several were nongermane. Given the universe of the amendments the committee received, I believe that this rule allows the House to debate each and every important

issue contained in the bill and provides this body with an opportunity to work its will.

Despite the large number of amendments submitted, I believe the underlying legislation, H.R. 1947, is a strong and meaningful statement and measure that provides our Nation with agriculture and nutrition policy necessary to meet the needs of this country.

And I want to commend, in particular, the young chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Collin Peterson), who have worked together over the years, not just the time when Mr. Peterson served as chairman of the committee, but also throughout the years that Mr. Lucas has worked in a bipartisan basis together, the committee, to work on agriculture policy.

Their hard work over the past several years has led us to the point where we are today. Hard work, working together, thinking, talking about the policy that would be good for the country--that's where we are today.

We follow that up with an opportunity to make sure, on a bipartisan basis, that I work together with my colleague, my colleagues at the Rules Committee. Notwithstanding Ms. Slaughter was busy on the floor a lot of the time yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) sat in, heard the amendments with the rest of the Rules Committee. We worked together, staffs, to try and make as many amendments in order that would create an opportunity to follow the leadership set by Mr. Peterson and Chairman Lucas.

So this year's FARRM Bill reforms our Nation's agriculture programs to provide American farmers with innovative risk management tools. It reforms our Nation's supplemental nutrition programs for the first time in nearly two decades, and it invests in meaningful conservation programs to ensure that future generations of Americans benefit from the same resources that we do today.

The bottom line is the top soil, that top soil that is in America, which is the greatest in the world, enables our farmers and ranchers to produce goods and services, food that serves the entire world. And I am proud of supporting those people who live a way of life in a rural area. I know them well, and I respect the hard work and what they do to make our country stronger and better.

Impressively, H.R. 1947 accomplishes all of this, while making difficult decisions on saving over $40 billion over the life of the bill. This legislation is common sense. This legislation is bipartisan.

This legislation allows us, through an amendment process, to make many tough and difficult decisions based upon representation of this House of Representatives about issues because we're re-looking at the entire FARRM Bill.

Most of all, I hope it's fiscally responsible for those. And we offer solutions, solutions to not only consumers, but also solutions to farmers about how we are going to keep their products and services, farmers and ranchers, families, rural communities and consumers all in a balance to where we know that, through the leadership of this House of Representatives, that we have done our job.

That is why we're here today. We're here to take on tough decisions. We're here to make this FARRM Bill better, and I am proud of the product that we present today.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I support the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can certify that at no time during this process have we vilified any poor people. We're here to help them. The Republican Party cares very much about families and children, moms who are trying to make a go of it.

We're the ones that are up here trying to lower taxes on everybody. We're the ones that are trying to make sure we've got jobs for people. We're the ones that are making sure that we're trying to take pedophiles and rapists and murderers off the rolls of government assistance so that it would serve those who need it the most.

We're trying to help prioritize and save this system. That is what Republicans are trying to do.

We would never vilify those that are disabled, or who are seniors, or who are men and women who richly deserve the opportunity for the government to help them.

But likewise, we believe that those who are able-bodied, those who really should be getting up during the day and trying to go find work do not take government assistance.

We are very concerned about the rights of seniors, about the rights of women, particularly women that have children, and about children and about the disabled. I work very extensively as a Republican with other Republicans and with Democrats on a bipartisan basis to make sure that we're looking at those needs of disabled people. So, I think it would be unfair to say, Well, this bill is aimed to vilify the people that we're intending to help, and that's why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is from Gainesville, Florida, and was a large animal vet. He understands a lot, not just about agronomics, but also about the men and women who take care of this country in agriculture, people who spend their lives there, people who have to take care of their animals and, day in and day out, the needs that it takes to make sure that we have the best farms and ranches in America, animals who are safe and consumers that get a good deal.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Yoho.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming down and speaking. She was at the Rules Committee yesterday and really sat for a long period of time in order to have her ideas taken up by the Rules Committee. As she knows, she's going to get a vote on what she spoke about today. It's not in there yet. She'll have a chance. This body will have a chance to determine whether we're going to go one direction or the other.

What drives the behavior of all this is very interesting. We're trying to work with, on a high level, something that's going to happen again soon in this next cycle starting at the end of September, and it is called sequestration--again, President Obama's idea of sequestration--which will cut $85 billion more across the board, and the entire government is struggling with how we're going to make these changes.

Our GDP is at less than 1 percent. Twenty-five million people are unemployed and underemployed. We're working with the policies of the Democratic Party that are bankrupting this country.

There are people who are hurting. There are people who need jobs, who need food, need to take care of their families, and need to take care of paying their student loans. This House of Representatives is on the mark of saying how we should solve each and every one of these problems.

They essentially go back to when Republicans had control of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the Presidency. For 60 straight months there was sustained, ongoing economic growth. Oh, my gosh, that was under George Bush. Well, that's right. President Bush and Republicans helped this country to achieve a doubling of GDP, of moving our country forward.

But there's also another model of success out there, and it was called President Clinton, who came and worked with the House of Representatives, who took Republican ideas, who took the ideas which we put and merged them with his own--probably called them his own--but moved this country forward. Instead, today we have leadership of our country that says no, no, no.

We've passed bipartisan legislation--cybersecurity. What's the President's answer? No. We've come today with bipartisan legislation from two stalwarts, men who have served this great Nation in the Agriculture Committee for years of service, bringing them together with the best ideas to try and formulate a policy.

Today, there will be examples of people who can control the destiny of these ideas. One is about trying to take rapists, pedophiles, and murderers off the rolls. Another that says we are not going to allow those that have won the lottery to be able to continue receiving food stamps. That's how this bipartisan bill is being crafted and worked together. And every Member of this body will have a chance to vote on the final direction that we go through amendments that were made in order by the Rules Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the young gentleman from Austin, Texas, that he'll have a chance to vote on this, and then we can make a determination. But it's pedophiles, murderers, rapists, those who should have enough money not to have government assistance, that's what we're trying to do here. And he'll have a chance to decide that today.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Taylorsville, Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of the Ag and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire about the time remaining on both sides, please, sir.

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

The gentleman from New York, who is a very dear friend of mine, spoke very eloquently about this bill.

I will tell you that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, is designed to ensure that the neediest Americans are able to help themselves with food for themselves and their families. I care very much about people who are disabled seniors and those who are having problems.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Member who did not think that reforming this program is also the right thing to do. This program was reformed in the Agriculture Committee. That's the text that we are bringing here today--Republicans and Democrats together working together, looking at the problem, and trying to make sure that prioritization is done.

They also recognize this: in the past decades, SNAP payments, otherwise known as food stamps, have increased by almost 300 percent; 300 percent is non-sustainable. A 300 percent increase puts huge responsibilities on public policy.

This is why Republicans have been offering ideas, and we continue to, about jobs and job growth. This is why Republicans see the terrible plight that the American family and the American people are having in trying to have jobs that are available in their hometown. And this goes to the responsibility of all elected officials, not just Members of Congress, but mayors and Governors and Senators and, Mr. Speaker, Presidents, people who are elected officials who need to understand that increasing food stamps by 300 percent over 10 years should be a national disgrace.

We're not trying to take advantage of those who are on it. They're on it because they cannot find work, they cannot find an opportunity because of public policies that make work harder to find because of rules and regulations out of this body and the Federal Government that are creating circumstances on employers to where they don't go employ people. We've talked about this for years. We said when we got into ObamaCare, this will cause a tremendous loss of jobs. The CBO--we're talking about this organization CBO--predicted the same thing.

Well, by golly, we can look ahead and see exactly where Europe is. Europe is going through what is a tragedy where young people cannot find jobs. It is an international disgrace. You see riots across Europe, and have.

Mr. Speaker, we better be smart enough to recognize that we better reform our policies, not just in agriculture policies but economic policies; economic policies that help people, sure, to get an education, but then a thriving marketplace, not just through trade but also through policies of this country.

Our leaders--Members of Congress, Governors, Vice Presidents, Presidents, and Senators--need to focus on this. We need jobs, we need job creation. We need the opportunity for every Member of Congress to understand how jobs are formulated, how jobs are then formulated, created, and then saved.

We've got a group of people that are in Washington that I think fail to look at the ramifications of long-term unemployment to our country. They, I think, are more interested in what we are going to do for people who are having tough times.

So I'm not here to vilify people. I'm here to say I suffer with you because I know them all over our country. I've seen them, not just in Taylorville, Illinois, but across this country.

What we are doing here today is bigger than just SNAP. It's larger than just the agriculture bill. It is how are we going to create a public policy that we involve all elected officials to understand about jobs, job creation, rules and regulations, and that we do not follow Europe; that we admit that Europe is the problem, not the answer; that we go back to the American Dream, the formulation of hard work, the formulation of creation of jobs and, yes, I'll say it, even people making money so they can employ more people and give more wages.

The free enterprise system, that's really the underpinning of what this whole argument is about today; a creation of a policy in this country that is about helping people that need help and about creating economic opportunity for a vast number of other people and making our country and the American Dream work. That's what the Republican Party is for. That's why we're here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that the House will be considering today as a result of amendments, ideas, that have come to the committee--some that are in the bill and some that are amendments against the bill. I'd like to, if I can, speak on one of those amendments at this time.

This amendment is amendment No. 194, and it is offered by the gentleman who is the former chairman of the committee and who is now the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is cosponsored by a number of Members of this House, including the gentleman Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. Chris Collins of New York, Mr. Moran, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Polis, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Lee, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Issa, and me.

The essence of what this is all about is that it would repeal the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. This program serves as a supply- and-control mechanism which distorts the private markets through which government intervention takes place and which unnecessarily fixes prices. As a result, American families pay higher prices for milk products, and American dairy exports are unnecessarily limited.

This amendment which I speak of, No. 194, known as the ``Goodlatte amendment,'' would replace the stabilization program with a voluntary margin insurance program, allowing producers to effectively manage their risks without unnecessary government intervention. It is government intervention that will simply raise prices for consumers.

It's an important amendment, and it has drawn a lot of attention. I would like to stand up and offer my support since I will not be here probably for the discussion of the bill at the time that the amendment comes up. I lend my support because I think this is one of the most critical piece parts to putting the free market together with the opportunities for reducing cost, bettering the services and products that are available, and helping keep America in the export market to where we are more competitive in the world marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, free market amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida. I do resemble that remark. I helped put this bill together, and I'm proud of it. We did it on a bipartisan basis.

We also did it in a way to try and encourage a marketplace that will become more vibrant, that will ensure that farms and farmers and families and rural areas will not only survive tough times, but be able to see an advantage for working hard.

People who are farmers and ranchers get up early and go to bed late. They represent the people of our country. They are the bedrock of not just men and women and their children who go serve in our military, but they're people who care about basic American values.

In a larger sense, what this FARRM Bill is doing is trying to find a way in its place in all of the policy that we do to take care of people properly in this country who are the neediest, but to also ensure that we prioritize it.

There are a lot of people that are my friends that are Democrats that talk about how this country is a rich and powerful country. Well, we're not as rich or as powerful as we used to be. In the last 5 years, we've diminished not only in stature and power, but in employment. We are falling behind because of policies in Washington, D.C.

This bill is about empowering people that are in real live America. They call it flyover country. It's to help people--farmers, ranchers, communities--to deal with these issues. We're for job creation and job growth.

The larger message is that we need jobs in this country. Let's not just take this as just an isolated incident to say just the FARRM Bill, but also the creation of jobs and job creation. There are 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. The GDP is less than 2 percent, where literally our country is not growing to sustain the newest generations of Americans who go to school, who go to college or to technical school, who come out and want to have a bright future. We are becoming more like Europe. We're becoming where we're beholden to a government that's bigger and more powerful and

one which drives entrepreneurship and individual responsibility out of the way. It's some of these policies that have led to a 300 percent increase in people who are on food stamps over the last 10 years.

We're trying to deal with the problem. I think we're going to do it in a bipartisan way, and I have confidence this bill is on the right pathway. Some may oppose that, and some may not like the bill. I respect that. I respect the gentlewoman from Florida. But I do resemble that remark, and I think our product is good.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in fact the gentlewoman is correct, the Speaker of the House, Speaker Boehner, did make a public statement, and he did indicate that we would be open for business at the Rules Committee. I have attempted to do everything necessary and proper to make sure that not only a fair hearing was held, but that all the people who would choose to come and make an amendment available, that the committee was available. We listened. We asked tough questions. We did. But we asked questions that I considered to be fair.

I don't think one witness was discouraged at all from taking all the time they needed but respected that we had some 200 amendments to go through. We did not rush. We took our time. We were very deliberative. We worked with the committee on a bipartisan basis. We consulted others, and we received feedback, and we have a model that I believe many people, if you came to the Rules Committee yesterday, would say they received a fair hearing. Good process.

I'm for this bill. I think it is fair. I think it is balanced. I think it is a good representation of what I'm willing to put my name on as a product to present to this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm down to the bare minimum time I have left, and I'm going to reserve my time to close. I will close whenever the gentleman is prepared to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, is most kind. He is most kind in not only how he presented his ideas today, and perhaps even some opposition, and I respect that. I respect him for not only standing up almost every day I see him for not just what he believes in, but caring about people.

My party cares about people, too. The Republican Party cares very much for people, not only those who have fallen on tough times but those who are friends and neighbors, and those who we don't know who live in our communities who are hurting, who are actually having tough times feeding their kids, finding work, paying student loans, and getting things done in their community that will better their community, following the guidelines that they always have about how tomorrow will be a better day for America and Americans. These are tough times.

But what we've done, and our mission today, is to take a farm bill that passed out of the committee that is very equally divided 36-10. This committee that looked at not just the policy on farm policy but has held hearing after hearing around this country, some 40 hearings over the last few years on the farm bill, to get it prepared and ready for this floor, to prepare it for the Rules Committee where both Republican and Democrat members of that committee came and thoughtfully presented their ideas, offered support for the bill once again that passed 36-10 in committee, and moved new ideas and allowed new ideas to be debated on this floor.

Look, not every amendment was made in order. I admit that. Did I want that as a goal to get closer? You bet I did.

But we allowed the debate and the opportunity up at the Rules Committee and then are trying to craft a bill that is in line with what the crafters wanted from farm policy. They're the people that understand this best. They're the people that know the impact.

And so I'm proud of the product. I think we've bettered it. I think we made it better up in the committee. I think we made it better here. And the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, is a part of that process.

As chairman of the Rules Committee, I have the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the mark that we make, that the presentation that we put on this floor and, most of all, that the legislation that allows full debate and content is important.

So, look, what we're going to do is try and worry about a new farm bill that we can move forward. I am supporting this bill. I hope we'll vote on the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 46 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of our brave servicemen and women are returning from combat with severe cases of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), resulting in an inability to hold a job, properly care for their families, or in some cases, to overcome suicidal tendencies. As a nation, we have the responsibility for their care and recovery.

Currently, private healthcare providers across the United States are helping brain injury patients with new and innovative treatments, some of which have not yet been made available in Department of Defense (DoD) treatment facilities. In an effort to fix this delinquency, I introduced H.R. 2344, the TBI Treatment Act, in the House of Representatives.

The TBI Treatment Act would establish a 5-year ``pay-for- performance'' pilot program, not to exceed $10 million per year, which would help expedite some of the new and groundbreaking treatments to our nations' active duty soldiers suffering from TBI and PTSD. Healthcare providers would be able to treat active-duty soldiers at no cost to the patient. The healthcare provider would be reimbursed by the DoD for providing the treatments, but only if the treatment is proven successful based on independent pre- and post-

treatment neuropsychological testing, accepted survey instruments, neurological imaging, or clinical examinations. Currently, soldiers and veterans suffering from TBI and PTSD are paying out-of-pocket for these innovative treatments. Lastly, treatments must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Secretary of Defense, and by an institutional review board operating in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In light of House consideration this week of H.R. 1960, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2014, I was proud to offer the TBI Treatment Act as an amendment to the NDAA along with my friend and colleague from California, Congressman Mike Thompson. I am pleased to report that last night; the House of Representatives approved by voice vote the TBI Treatment Act amendment. This is a great victory for those suffering from TBI and PTSD and is an important step towards ensuring that our nation's soldiers receive the care and treatments they have earned and deserve. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will also include the TBI Treatment Act when they consider defense authorization legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Concurrent Resolution 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the bi-partisan effort that took place here today to resurrect a piece of legislation that is very important to San Antonio, Texas and to our national heritage.

Last Congress my good friend and our former colleague, Mr. Canseco of San Antonio, worked diligently for over a year to craft this legislation only to see its success thwarted at the last minute by our colleagues in the United States Senate.

I want to thank Mr. Doggett for not letting this issue go away and helping to fulfill Mr. Canseco's vision for San Antonio and for the protection of such a historical landmark in Texas.

I am proud to stand today and support this bill, which most of us voted for last year, so that we may see through the vision Mr. Canseco had for the San Antonio Missions National Park.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of fallen Dallas firefighter Stanley Allen Wilson.

Stanley worked selflessly alongside his fellow firefighters and was an exemplary example of steadfast commitment to bettering, protecting and saving lives. When others run away, the brave men and women who serve as our first responders rush in. Stanley Wilson was no different. Responding to a massive six alarm fire, he answered the call of duty and made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our community safe.

Stanley, a lifelong native of Dallas, Texas, was a 1979 graduate of Lake Highlands High School and attended the University of Texas. As a 28-year veteran of the Dallas Fire Department, Stanley served proudly at Dallas Fire Station #53 in Lakewood.

Stanley's life reflected his love for family and community. He was a devout Christian, dedicated husband and father, and a true public servant. Whether it was serving his church community at Park Cities Baptist Church, serving his sons as the quartermaster for Boy Scout Troop 890, or serving the City of Dallas as a firefighter, Stanley held true to his principles and never wavered in his loyalty to those around him.

Stanley Wilson is survived by his wife of 20 years, Jenny and his two sons Noah and Luke.

I am privileged to honor this fellow Boy Scout Leader and commend him for ``leaving his campsite better than he found it.'' Stanley Wilson will be greatly missed. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 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.

House Resolution 216 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1062. This rule provides for discussion and opportunities for every single Member of the majority and the minority to participate in this debate. We made in order every single germane amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is really quite simple. It is a commonsense solution to preventing unnecessary and overly burdensome government regulation, or perhaps an opportunity to understand why the government might be perpetrating a rule that would impact our free enterprise system. It requires the SEC to perform cost- benefit analysis before finalizing any major rule. It also prevents the implementation of the rule if the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Through this bill, the American taxpayer will be protected from needless regulations that would impede economic growth without providing effective consumer protections. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're here to ensure that the SEC provides balance with the rules and regulations that are in a major context when it issues these rules on the marketplace.

In January of 2011, President Obama signed an executive order directing all non-independent agencies, such as the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and others, to abide by the same rules that we're providing for today in H.R. 1062. However, because it is an independent agency, the SEC is not required to follow the President's rules.

The legislation before us today creates parity and opportunity for Congress to work with an agency and other non-independent agencies on a better way for them to promulgate the rules that they do and show a balance in the marketplace, just like the President asked other government agencies to do.

Furthermore, this legislation in no way weakens consumer protections or reduces accountability in the financial services industry. To the contrary, this proposal ensures that regulations issued by the SEC are effective and based on sound policy. Consumers and businesses alike will benefit from a reformed regulatory process.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman who brings up many good points about jobs, job creation, the ability for this Congress to be able to effectively hear from the American people about the issues and ideas that they're facing, come to resolution in this body, work with our friends in the Senate, and to get legislation to the President of the United States. I think that should be and has been what our goal is about, and it should be our goal also to find common ground.

What's interesting is that this piece of legislation that we're handling now actually went to the banking committee, Financial Services Committee, as an agreement we more or less thought would be a suspension item; in other words, a piece of legislation that there was widespread agreement on that it would be good to put in the rules as one of a group of pieces of legislation, this would be a good idea to have the SEC accept this as part of what they do when they issue a rule.

Now what's happened is it has turned into a larger fight as a result of us wanting to simply make sure that the rules that apply to other Federal agencies also apply to independent agencies. So we thought we were doing the right thing to come and work together, and it's fair, I guess, I assume, to do that, even though we are trying to talk about this rule today.

If we want to talk about the budget and things that are presently being evolved, then we need to listen to our Democratic friends about the budget. They're not happy because we passed in this House an opportunity to have a budget that in the next 10 years would balance, a balanced budget.

The gentleman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, came up to the Rules Committee and he spoke about how this President, every single year that Barack Obama is President, with the help of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, raised spending, put rules and regulations on the American people that are causing the lowest level of job creation that we've had in over 40 years, a trillion-dollar deficit every single year. And even with this massive tax increase that was a signing bonus for the President that took place in December, we still are going to run a trillion-dollar deficit. So what my friends, the Democrats, said upstairs in the Rules Committee, what they're for is raising spending another trillion dollars and raising taxes another trillion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand there's widespread disagreement. There's widespread disagreement when our friends that control the Senate, the Democrats, want to do the exact same thing in their body to this country, raising spending another trillion dollars, raising taxes another trillion dollars.

So they make a good point. Why won't we appoint conferees?

Well, Speaker Pelosi, back in 2009, took more than 2 months to do the exact same thing that they want us to do.

What is occurring is that our chairman, Paul Ryan, is working with their chairman on the agreement of how they would go about doing their job of having a conference on the budget because, you see, when you start so far apart, of trying to balance the budget, trying to not put more rules and regulations and taxes on the American people to where they stand a better

chance, not only of taking care of their own families, and providing for their children to go to college and to be able to pay for it, and to take care of their lifetime needs when they retire, that requires a basic sense of simply agreeing with what people are trying to do versus having the government come and provide a government-run health care system, having the government provide student loans, having the government expand government and take care of people endlessly.

And so there's two different visions, one of raising taxes $1 trillion, raising spending $1 trillion, which is what the Democrats want to do, versus trying to balance our budget, work our way out of problems, grow our economy, jobs, job creation and investment. That's what we're trying to do, and that's what Republicans talked about last month.

That's why we came forth with a budget when the Senate hadn't even done a budget, under Democrat leadership, for 4 years.

That's why we are leaders in Washington. Republicans are leaders in the House of Representatives. We maintain the control. We follow the order and listen to the American people of trying to make their lives better, not grow a government that will be out of control, like an Attorney General who, upon taking the oath of office, then decides when he does and when he does not want to make decisions, and whether he recuses himself; or whether you have an IRS that's out of control and in people's lives and making decisions that are politically based.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why we need a government that is smaller, more efficient, and does not have time or the inclination to become all things to all people, and to tell the American people what they will do and control our lives. That's why we're here today.

And, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't be happier than to say today we're on the floor trying to talk about what we thought was an idea that would be accepted by every single person in this body as a great idea.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I think it's very interesting that they're trying to argue that we're trying to get in the way of the SEC. Yet the SEC, in their rules and regulations, have put an impact on small business of $1.75 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is apply the same principles and ideas that President Obama had to an agency that spends its life doing rules and regulations. And to say that doing their job correctly, with a balance, is something that we shouldn't require them to do is a silly argument.

That's like saying that Republicans and sequestration--when it was a President Obama idea. It is the President's idea. Sequestration--he's the one that proposed it. We're the ones that simply took him up on his idea. And he signed it into law.

They're arguing with themselves about the things which are good. Once again, the President initiated sequestration. We worked with the President as a back-stop. There we are.

The President issues this same ruling, asking agencies to please make sure they include cost-benefit analysis, but don't apply it later to someone who spends their life doing rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, it's an amazing world that we live in. We thought, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling, after testimony in meetings and in feedback thought, the SEC actually agreed with this. We simply put it in as something they ought to be doing on a regular basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have right now a gentleman from the committee who has spent time and heard the testimony and understands that this should be a piece of legislation that we all agree with because it's common sense.

I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of Financial Services, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. Speaker, in order to balance out the time, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to put in writing exactly what the gentleman talked about why are they promulgating the rule, what effects would their rule have, and why what they do makes sense and is in a balanced way. That's what we're trying to do here today. It makes sense to me. I wish it made sense to more people in this body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We've turned this debate into some really commonsense ideas, and that is, that we ought to have a budget, which is what Republicans have said for years. I have no doubt in my mind that when Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Budget Committee, when he is ready, when he feels like they have worked out an understanding with the chairman----

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I don't deal with Senator Patty Murray very much, but I bet you she has an opportunity to call Paul Ryan if that's what she wants.

And I have every reason to believe that when Paul Ryan and Patty Murray work out the differences and decide these things, that that can happen.

I would remind the gentleman, I'm not involved in those conversations. I do know that this is part of your job as the ranking member. I respect that, and I would be in favor of it, because I, too, want us to have more of a unified budget, a clear understanding, an opportunity for us to understand what we're trying to do.

Regaining my time, I would say to the gentleman and to this body, I have every reason to believe that there can be opportunities for our two bodies to work together.

My last point: This ``no budget, no pay,'' it worked. It worked, Mr. Speaker. It was the law. The President actually produced a budget.

The House produced a budget. And the Senate produced a budget, which they had not done for 4 years. So for 4 years you didn't hear our friends screaming and yelling about what the Senate should do until a good idea took place, and that is, in essence, ``no work, no budget, no pay.''

Do you know what? We didn't for 4 years either. We did not have a budget for 4 years. It is actually not required by law. We operated as two bodies--us, we in the House, trying to move forward with a budget that we did pass, and the Senate acting like it wasn't important.

I completely agree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think we should do it. That's why Republicans came up with the process of ``no budget, no pay.''

I think we will see very quickly an opportunity for the ideas around this issue to materialize. We'll find out what the differences are, maybe why we haven't done it.

That's not what this bill is about today. I'll have the conversations. I'll be able to speak cogently. And I will tell you that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and, I believe, because I know him well, the gentleman from Maryland should have a chance to keep doing their work because they believe it's part of the process.

So I offer nothing but accolades of the gentleman, the young gentleman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. And he knows that. He knows what kind of a person I am. I would not say it if I didn't believe it.

But I did not come prepared today on this bill because it is not what it is germane about, and I will respond to him. As a Member of House Republican leadership, I will tell you that our Speaker is interested in moving this body through.

The gentleman from Ohio understands how important regular order is, how important doing budgets is, how making sure that the American people have a chance to know what we're doing. I mean, we actually read bills before we pass them, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking. I have no additional speakers at this time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be on the floor today as we approach this issue about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, in that we would simply codify in the law an understanding that they would need to, as they have the task of addressing the large rules and regulations that they have--but not for every rule and regulation--put a cost-benefit analysis in their process. It makes sense.

I find it very amazing that our colleagues have taken this to the level that they have in trying to say that we're doing this to be for big banks and against the American people or consumers. That is a farfetched idea. It is about the rules and regulations that they talk about, just like government agencies would be required to have.

In a larger sense, here is why we are here today. Here is why Republicans are doing what we are doing with the budget, with a jobs bill that was passed by this body, why we are trying to talk about what we would do with sequestration--the President's idea. This House has passed numerous times information, our ideas, giving the President the ideas about how we think sequestration should work, a debt limit. We are faced with another debt limit vote here in our future. Two weeks ago, the House talked about how that should be handled. That bill was completely mischaracterized.

The reason we are here is that, under Barack Obama and Democrats, our country is having a $1 trillion deficit every year, and there is not one year in the future that they can point to in which we would balance our budget even for one year. If you cannot balance your budget, if you cannot control yourself--your spending habits, your insatiable appetite to grow government--then it means that we are on a dangerous trajectory.

Look at this, Mr. Speaker. This is history. This is what lies ahead. This is the demise for our children of America being a great Nation. This is why Republicans are down here. This is our past. This is our future. Republicans are here with ideas about balance, structure, working together--the SEC or other agencies working together--to the benefit of growing jobs, balance, things that make sense, instead of a government that's out of control with an IRS with a political agenda and with the Department of Justice abusing its powers that were invested in the Constitution's and the Bill of Rights' understanding of a balance.

This reminds me of a prior administration, under Richard Nixon, when he used the IRS and the Department of Justice to punish his enemies, people he disagreed with.

Mr. Speaker, we are here on a broad range of ideas, evidently, today. When I woke up, I thought it was just about a balanced rule for the SEC, for them to apply in their rules and regulations a chance to say ``cost-benefit analysis'' so that those to whom they provide regulations would understand and the SEC would understand for their some 175 lawyers and 50 economists who look at the marketplace. Let's balance this out. That's what I thought we were here for. Instead, I have learned today we are here to talk about the budget, that we are here to talk about sequestration, that we are here to talk about a lot of things which all embody themselves in: our country is in trouble.

We are in trouble because the President of the United States is for a bigger activist government, for a health care bill that will cause us to lose 2 million more jobs and will keep small business smaller. It will harm our future. Republicans are here simply with common sense and balance today just to talk about the SEC. I welcome the chance for my colleagues, as they have done today, to come to the floor.

The gentleman, Mr. Van Hollen, is one of my closest friends on the Hill. He is a man who I work with on a regular basis, and I respect him. His ideas related to moving forward on the conference should be answered, and I anticipate they will. I simply came unprepared as to that answer today.

So, Mr. Speaker, as always, I will finish where I started and say Republicans are trying to provide leadership. Our great Speaker, John Boehner, does understand regular order and that it is important to read bills before you pass them.

We believe in coming to the floor and talking about ideas before problems occur. That's what we've been doing. That's what the Rules Committee is about. And the legislation that we have handled since January has been all about trying to work together to let the American people know we get it. We're going to balance what we do with their needs and desires to make sure that this country remains strong and is ready for its future because, Mr. Speaker, I, like you, have children who need our country to be prepared for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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