Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I've come to this floor nearly every week since the sequester took effect in March to highlight its dangerous consequences to our national security, its harmful impact on our economy, and the pain it is causing the most vulnerable people in our country.

Now, with the sequester in its 21st week, this Congress has still not achieved the big, balanced and bipartisan solution to deficits that we need to replace the sequester and put America back on a sound fiscal path.

Only such an agreement, Mr. Speaker, can provide a viable alternative to the irrational cuts this sequestration has imposed. Those cuts are already exacerbating the many challenges we face as a Nation.

Later this week, I will be delivering meals to seniors in my district with the Meals on Wheels program, which could be delivering 4 million fewer meals nationwide as a result of the sequester.

One small business owner from my district recently reached out to my staff to say that he was personally impacted by Meals on Wheels when the

grandmother who raised him was diagnosed with cancer and came to rely on Meals on Wheels during the final part of her life.

He couldn't believe that after all the good work the Prince George's County Meals on Wheels office had done, that they were being forced to reduce their operations significantly as a result of the sequester.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the richest country on the face of the Earth does not need to leave people, particularly seniors who can't get out, hungry.

Other harmful effects on the most vulnerable Americans include an 11 percent cut to emergency unemployment insurance payments and 125,000 fewer rental assistance vouchers.

Mr. Speaker, as many as 70,000 children could be kicked out of Head Start--they're only going to be 4 once--including approximately 800 children in my own State.

I read on Monday in The Washington Post about the Whitney Young Head Start Center in Yonkers, New York, Mr. Speaker, which has served primarily Hispanic families for more than 12 years, teaching kids English and providing them medical services and meals. It closed down on Friday, a victim of sequestration.

And on Monday, an article in the Huffington Post drew attention to an effect of the sequester that represents a dangerous undermining of justice, and that is the cut to public defenders who represent defendants in the Federal court system who cannot afford their own attorneys. This fulfills the Constitutional requirement that everyone is entitled to legal representation. It can't be waived.

That report in The Washington Post says, ``The Public Defender system hasn't just been stripped bare by sequestration, its bones have been chiseled away as well.''

Mr. Speaker, can we risk delaying justice for victims and their families because our country can't afford public defenders?

Do we want cases dismissed against people who have done wrong because the Constitution says they have to have a defense that we can't afford, apparently?

I met yesterday with Maryland District Court judges, about eight of them, and they raised this issue as one of critical importance. And one of the judges, a Reagan appointee, was obviously very animated at how we were undermining the very essence of the judicial system. Surely no one on this floor intends to do that.

At the Defense Department, 650,000 civilian workers are already being furloughed 2 days a month. That's an effective cut in pay of 20 percent for hardworking people on whom we rely to maintain the national security of our country.

On July 2, I visited with civilian defense workers from Pax River Naval Air Station in St. Mary's County, and I heard from my constituents there who are being forced to stay home from work without pay. They were certainly concerned about their families' finances.

But Mr. Speaker, these hardworking and patriotic public servants were far more worried about furloughs' effect on our military readiness and support for our troops in the field on those Fridays when many are forced to stay home, and not at their post. Legally, they can't even come to work and volunteer their time.

The sequester is hurting morale and putting our security at risk, Mr. Speaker, at a moment when our troops are still in harm's way every single day, Fridays, otherwise known as furlough days, included.

I'll be going to another installation in Maryland's Fifth District on Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, to meet with civilian employees there. I will tell them that Congress has the ability to end the furloughs they are experiencing now.

We have the ability to keep those kids from losing Head Start, and our seniors from losing meals. We have that ability now. We can do so by coming together in a bipartisan way to replace the sequester with a balanced alternative that includes spending cuts and, yes, revenues.

This is what Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has put forward seven times, Mr. Speaker, only to see it prevented by the majority from receiving a vote.

The Speaker says, let the House work its will. Well, perhaps this is the will of the House. I hope not.

I urge my colleagues to work together across the aisle so we can end the sequester and restore fiscal discipline in a way that does not harm our security, our economy, the most vulnerable in our country, or America itself.

Mr. Speaker, as Speaker Boehner has said, later today Members and staff from both parties will come together to remember the tragic shooting that occurred 15 years ago in this Capitol when a lone gunman tried to enter the building through what we now know as the Memorial Door. U.S. Capitol Police Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut--Gibson from Virginia and Chestnut from Maryland-- courageously placed themselves between the gunman and not only all of us who serve here but all of us who visit here.

They gave their lives, Mr. Speaker, to protect this institution that is the foundation of our democracy. They died protecting the many people who come here each day to serve our country, to see their government in action, and put so much of themselves into making America better and stronger and safer for us all.

On this day--and every day--let us remember the heroic sacrifice of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut and let us appreciate the dedicated and often unsung service of the United States Capitol Police personnel, who stand watch every hour over our safety, our lives, and our ability to perform our duties without fear of violence.

May God bless their families and keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week.

I note that there was not on the notice for next week--the Senate has now voted to go to conference on the farm bill. Clearly, that is a matter that I think both sides, or certainly our side, I think your side as well, feels is a priority item. Does the gentleman have any plans to move to go to conference now that the Senate has asked for a conference next week on the farm bill?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that comment; however, I'm somewhat perplexed, Mr. Leader.

You and I had a relatively animated colloquy some, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago, at which point in time you said that we passed the farm bill that, of course, we didn't like and none of us voted for, that we passed the farm bill so that, in fact, we could follow regular order and go to conference. We passed that farm bill.

The Senate has now voted to go to conference, but what I hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens; in the case of the budget, until Mr. Ryan apparently gets Ms. Murray to agree on--I don't want to characterize it too heavily, but to agreeing with him as opposed to compromise.

But I'm a little, as I said, perplexed, because a few weeks ago you told me that the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition, which had been in there for half a century, was so that we could go to conference. Well, now we're there, but there's no motion to go to conference. I'm perplexed, and I would appreciate if the gentleman--because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order. We now have the Senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for ours, and now have asked for a conference on the same. That is regular order.

Can the gentleman tell me: Are we now making a condition, as we lawyers say, precedent--that is, something's got to happen--before we go to conference? Because, very frankly, Mr. Leader, you and I both know that the nutrition bill is what made the farm bill apparently fall on the rocks, which is why you dropped it in order to pass the farm bill. It was a totally partisan bill, but now we need to get to agreement.

I tell you, we're running out of time, Mr. Leader, and I think we need to get this farm bill done; and I would hope that we could go to conference, as the gentleman said we were going to do, with the Senate on the House-passed bill.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

The truth in legislating is that we are not legislating. We are putting forth the positions of your party in this House, not shared by the Senate, not shared by the President of the United States, also elected by the people of the United States; and absent agreement by those two entities, coequal branches of the Congress and a coequal branch of the government, the executive, absent their agreeing with your party's perspective, we're not legislating. That's the problem, Mr. Leader.

And again, I express to you, you said--and I don't have the words in front of me exactly, but we can pull them out. But I am perplexed because you said, when we passed the farm bill without the nutrition program in it--which had been done for a half a century. They had been paired by Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, signed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. It's only this last 2 years that we have been unable to come to grips with bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. It's only in the past 2 years that we've been unable to get a bill that was bipartisan in fashion to the floor and, ultimately, voted on final passage.

The bipartisan bills that came out of committee both in the last Congress and this Congress were turned into--the first one, of course, in the last Congress didn't come to the floor, as the gentleman knows. He didn't bring it to the floor at all, notwithstanding the fact it had bipartisan support in the committee. And notwithstanding the fact that the bill that was brought to the floor had bipartisan support and the support of the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, notwithstanding he didn't agree with some portions that were adopted, for instance, on milk, he was, nevertheless, prepared to adopt it until three very partisan, we thought very harmful, amendments to people without means were adopted.

You knew that was the case. You then had told me--and I repeat, I know, and reiterate. But the simple representation you made was that we did that--and Mr. Sessions made that and said,

by the way, that the nutrition part of the program, getting support for people who needed food, was extraneous to the bill. That's not our perspective over here, but that was the perspective that the chairman of the Rules Committee laid out when we considered the rule.

But you then said, in that colloquy, that the reason we did that was because you wanted to get a bill through. And, frankly, that's the only way you could pick up the overwhelming majority of the 62 of your Republicans who voted against it. I can only conclude that because you got the majority to do it, failing the first time because 62 Republicans decided they didn't like, apparently, the nutrition part of the bill and they voted against it. When you dropped the nutrition part of the bill, which had been in there for 50 years, then you got the majority on your side. That's when you got zero of us. You had 24 the first time.

So I'm perplexed that now that we have done what you said we were going to do, not about budgets, not about--you and I agree we need to get a handle on it. That's not what this issue is about. This issue is about whether or not we're going to have a farm bill and whether we're going to have such in a timely way. I'm going to talk a little bit about the CR.

But we have 17 days left to go between now and September 30, and we think it's timely to move. I don't know. Your nutrition bill is not on the program here. We'll have 1 week after next week.

We're not sure because we haven't seen a nutrition bill that you have. We don't know what's going to be in that. But we have passed a farm bill. The Senate wants to go to conference. The Senate wants to go to conference--at least the Democrats do--on the budget. And we're not doing it, Mr. Leader. And we need to do it.

It takes two to be bipartisan, Mr. Leader. You know that and I know that. I've got a pretty long record of working in a bipartisan fashion. But I will tell you, I disagree with the majority leader, respectfully, that there aren't the votes on this floor to pass the SNAP program and the agriculture program.

We agree on this side that there's a relationship between those who produce food and those who eat food. We think there's a direct relationship, which is why for half a century these have been related, so that the folks in the city would understand that those on the farm are very important people and we need to make sure that we have a partnership with them. Very frankly, it's worked for half a century. Unfortunately, it didn't work this year.

I will say to my friend, you are accurate in saying there are a majority of people on this floor--not in our party--but a majority on this floor, including Mr. Lucas, who twice has reported out a bill with bipartisan support and argued for it on the floor. He argued for it and pleaded with your party to support the farm bill, even though from both parties' standpoint it wasn't a perfect bill. But 62 of your Members rejected his plea. And my view is Mr. Lucas is still in that position of where he sees the rationale of having those together. He's the Republican chairman of the committee. I respect Mr. Lucas for his comments both times the bill was considered on the floor.

I will move on. But allowing the farm bill to languish is dangerous for this country, for the farm community, and for others. It undermines our economy. Moving with dispatch is in the best interest of our country.

Now, let me ask you something. As I said, we have 17 days left to go until September 30. This Congress has not passed an appropriation bill. We've passed three appropriation bills. The Senate is going to consider one, apparently, next week. We won't be here on September 30. We're only here 2 weeks in September. There are holidays and Labor Day. So we're only going to be here 2 weeks.

I want to ask my friend if he or the majority or the Budget Committee or the Appropriations Committee and the leadership in concert has a plan for what we might do to assure stability in government and in our country's confidence that the government will be operating on October 1.

There's a way to do that, of course. It is called regular order, as we've discussed. The conference committee is where you do that. But not withstanding that fact, we have for over 100 days now seen languishing the Senate-passed budget and our budget, and an attempt by the leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, to go to conference, but no effort to go to conference to, as you say, in a bicameral, bipartisan way to resolve differences. They're very substantial. But everybody is sitting in their corner.

Patty Murray wants to come to the midpoint to have a conference. I've talked to her. She's the chairman of the Budget Committee. But we have not moved, unlike the Senate--and they haven't succeeded because of Republican opposition--but they have tried to go to conference. We have not made any effort to go to conference, Mr. Leader, and you can't have a bicameral resolution and compromise and bipartisanship if you don't sit down and talk to one another in conference.

Mr. Ryan asking Senator Murray, Do it my way, is not going to get us there. A conference may. I don't think it's guaranteed, but it may. And I would hope we could go to conference and follow regular order on the budget. We should have adopted a budget 4 months ago. We need to adopt a funding resolution by September 30 in some form or fashion. The failure to go to conference is undermining our ability to do that.

I'm surprised to hear the majority leader say budget has no relationship to the appropriations process or the continuing resolution.

I've been on the Appropriations Committee, as the gentleman knows, for 23 years. I'm not on it now. And you've adopted a budget, not because the budget passed but because you deemed the budget passed, you've pretended it passed. We did that ourselves to get a number. Why is that important? Because that's the spending number. Ours is $967 billion. The Senate's is $1.058 trillion. It's some $91 billion more.

So there's a very substantial difference between the two Houses. It has to be resolved. Maybe the gentleman can tell me, since we don't have a resolution of what the number is going to be, which is what a budget conference does, and what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless the Senate agrees with your perception of revenues--and I know that you repeat that all the time. I get it. I know your position. I know the position of your party. My position, of course, is we need to pay for what we buy. You're right. If we don't buy it, we don't have to pay for it. And we have to make that judgment on behalf of the American people. That's what they sent us here to do.

But the fact of the matter is, if your position is that unless they agree with your perception--they have a different point of view. They were elected by the American people. By the way, this side was elected by the American people, 1.4 million more of whom voted for us than voted for your side of the aisle. You have the majority. Redistricting provided for that, God bless you. I wish I were in your position, not in mine, from that standpoint. But the fact of the matter is more of the American people voted for us than they voted on your side. But you have the majority.

You ought not to be in the position, I suggest, respectfully, Mr. Leader, of saying unless the Senate will accede to our position, we're not going to go to conference. I don't understand saying you want a bicameral, bipartisan agreement without going to conference.

Let me ask you about immigration. There's nothing on here about immigration. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. Does the gentleman have any reason to believe that we're going to move ahead on immigration? President Bush said just the other day the system is not working. The system is broken. Your chairman of the Budget Committee, talking about the budget, said we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed.

Can the gentleman tell me whether there's any action contemplated on immigration?

Mr. Leader, the last question. You said the defense authorization bill is coming to the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether that will be coming to the floor under an open rule or a rule other than open?

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sadness. I am saddened by the passing of my friend, William H. Gray, who represented the people of Pennsylvania's Second District in this House from 1979 to 1991.

Bill Gray was an historic figure. I had the honor of serving as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus when he chaired the Democratic Caucus. He made history as the first African American Democratic whip from 1989 to 1991. As Budget chairman, Bill Gray played an instrumental role in setting the stage for the balanced budgets of the 1990s.

He was a leading voice against apartheid. Some of us just participated in a birthday celebration for Nelson Mandela in Emancipation Hall. Bill Gray was a leading advocate of changing the apartheid system in South Africa, and it was because of his efforts that we were able to enact sanctions against South Africa.

After retiring from Congress, Bill Gray led the United Negro College Fund, helping literally thousands access higher education and the opportunities that come with it. Throughout his tenure, Bill Gray continued to minister to the families of the Bright Hope Baptist Church as their pastor. His deep faith and enduring love for his fellow man was evident not only from the pulpit but from the committee rooms and on this floor.

I join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to Andrea and their sons, William, Justin, and Andrew, and in thanking them for sharing Bill Gray with all of us and with our country. We were privileged to serve with him, to know him, and to be his friend.

Mr. Speaker, for civilian defense employees at Pax River Naval Air Station, Webster Field, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, all of which I represent--and Mr. Jones, who is on the floor, represents a substantial number as well in his district-- sequestration hit home last week as furloughs began. The same is true of 650,000 civilian defense workers throughout our country.

The furloughs brought on by the irrational policy of sequestration are harming our national security and putting our military readiness at risk. At the same time, they also represent a severe 20 percent pay cut in the form of days when they are forced to stay home without pay, forbidden even from volunteering to continue performing their important tasks.

Federal employees, including those in civilian defense positions, have already contributed $114 billion over the last 3 years for the next 7 years toward deficit reduction from pay freezes and changes in retirement benefits. These are hardworking, dedicated men and women who only want to serve their country and make a difference.

As I said on this floor last week, I went to Pax River 2 weeks ago to meet with many of those preparing to be furloughed. I heard their concerns about the sequester's effects on the missions of our men and women in uniform whom these civilian employees support.

We have men and women at the point of this spear, but we have a lot of men and women who are making sure that they can be as effective and as safe as possible at the point of that spear. And I heard from them about how the sequester is affecting morale on and off base.

What I did not hear much at all from those employees was concern for themselves, about how furloughs will impact their own families. That's because their number one concern, even facing an undeserved 20 percent pay cut, is still their ability to serve and get the job done for our troops and all of us who depend on a strong national defense.

After my meeting with civilian defense employees from Maryland's Fifth District, I received an email message from an employee at Webster Field. He wrote this:

We pride ourselves in not only delivering a quality product

but on being responsive to the emergent needs of our soldiers

and sailors around the world.

He went on to say:

If our dedicated folks are told to turn the lights off and

lock the doors at 4 p.m. on a Thursday, then who will provide

that level of responsiveness our military counterparts have

so desperately come to expect and rely on when no one is here

to respond to the call on Friday? What message does that send

to the civilians and contractors who have made it their

mission to ensure our military never goes without critical

equipment, data, and training they need?

He goes on to say:

I genuinely worry that it devalues the level of effort that

our employees have put forth. And when you're losing your pay

and your work appears to be less important, it will become

much harder to retain a lot of these very talented folk.

Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the words of one of America's many selfless public servants who are concerned about this dangerous sequester.

What will it take for Congress to act?

We've also seen air combat units grounded, and some classes at the Naval Academy this fall could be canceled if sequester continues. The only way to reverse these effects, Mr. Speaker, on our military readiness and training is to replace the sequester with a big and balanced alternative.

Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has proposed a balanced alternative seven times, but the majority has not allowed us to consider a balanced plan on this floor. If we had, on this floor, an alternative to the sequester that achieves real deficit reduction-- which we know we need--through a balance of revenues and targeted spending cuts, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the majority of us, Republican and Democrat, would come together and would support it. It's time for Speaker Boehner to appoint budget conferees so that House and Senate negotiators can begin to reach agreement on a balanced compromise.

I will continue, Mr. Speaker, to call on both parties to listen to the men and women of Pax River, of Webster

Field, of Indian Head, Quantico, the folks in North Carolina that Mr. Jones represents, the folks in Maryland that I represent, the folks in Connecticut that Mr. Courtney represents, the folks in Massachusetts that my good friend, the ranking member--almost ranking member on the Rules Committee represents, and the gentleman from Illinois represents. They and I will continue, in both parties, to act, to act on a balanced, rational, reasonable alternative that brings the deficit down but maintains our national security and the morale of the people who every day work to protect our great land.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak the truth. This bill and the other bill are not real; they are purely partisan politics. They have nothing to do with reality. My friends and Mr. Speaker, the American people ought to know that is the truth.

These bills take time, with no effect. And everybody in this House-- the majority leader and 434 of the rest of us--know these bills are going nowhere. They are, in fact, the 38th and 39th effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an attempt which has been made some 37 times already with no substantive alternative to assure quality, affordable health care for all Americans. My friends, that is the truth.

This is a game. This is political messaging, nothing more, nothing less. It is a ``gotcha'' game.

The President has already taken action to make sure that businesses-- some 4 percent of the businesses in America, by the way, are affected by what the President did and your purported bill--to make sure that they can do the paperwork properly. The administration took the right action.

Your first bill is not necessary and you know it. It is a setup so that your second bill, which takes away the individual mandate--which America ought to know, Mr. Speaker, would undermine the very benefits that are today being enjoyed by seniors, by young people, by children with preexisting conditions, and by so many millions of Americans enjoying the benefits today. But without the individual mandate, as the Heritage Foundation pointed out so many years ago--a position they have now changed, of course--was absolutely essential to make sure that we could bring costs down. The New York Times of course, today, ironically, said on its front page that there is a possibility that premiums are going to be reduced 50 percent.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friends in the press, in the media, don't take any of these votes for real. They're ``gotcha'' votes so that maybe some people will vote ``yes'' to confirm the President's opinion and then say, But we don't want to undermine the Affordable Care Act--as all of you who have voted so often have expressed your willingness and intent to do. But then they will vote ``no'' on the individual mandate, and you will say, of course, My, my, my; they were for businesses but against all you individuals. That RNC ad I'm sure is written already. That's what this is about, ``gotcha'' politics.

Isn't it a shame. Isn't it a shame, when millions of Americans have no health care, when millions of Americans have no jobs, when people are being furloughed in the defense sector, undermining the security of our country--in Virginia and in Maryland--undermining our national security, that we spend our time here on this floor with ``gotcha'' politics, with no expectation whatsoever that either of these bills will ever become law.

This is simply messaging. This is simply saying for the people who have been, for the last 4 years, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And so many people were absolutely positive that President Obama was going to go down to defeat on the horns of the dilemma of the Affordable Health Care Act. It didn't happen. The American people said, No, we don't buy that argument. We believe providing Americans with health care is an important objective. We believe in making sure that kids and individuals with preexisting conditions can get health care, making sure that seniors won't be driven into poverty by paying for expensive drugs to keep them alive, making sure that people get preventive health care and are not disincentivized in doing that by additional costs.

I thank my friend.

Ladies and gentlemen, we really need to come together and talk about how we reasonably move forward.

Speaker Boehner said, when the President was reelected, well, the Affordable Care Act is here. But you continue, you continue this very day, to pretend you're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That's maybe what your constituents want. That's maybe good politics for you, but it's lousy substance. That's the truth.

This is a ``gotcha'' vote. The press ought to disregard and constituents ought to disregard anything other than this is a vote to end the Affordable Care Act. Reject it. Reject it. Reject this politics as usual.

Mr. Speaker, today's votes are a sad and unnecessary gimmick.

What Republicans are focusing on with these bills is not real--it's part of a political game that comes at the cost of spending time on the actual challenges we face, like creating jobs and replacing the sequester.

I'm not surprised that Republicans continue to force votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, because that's been their position all along.

Today's votes are more of the same--efforts to undermine a law that has

been enacted by Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed with the reelection of President Obama.

The Administration has already announced they are delaying employer penalties by one year, while they continue to work with America's businesses to simplify reporting requirements.

They have already taken the needed steps to give the four percent of employers impacted by this policy more time to adapt their health coverage to new requirements--making today's legislation both redundant and irrelevant.

With respect to the individual responsibility requirement--no delay is needed.

Consumers will soon be able to use new insurance marketplaces to purchase insurance products that cover pre-existing conditions, do not impose arbitrary limits on your coverage, and do not charge women higher premiums than men for the exact same policy.

Many will be eligible for tax credits to help them cover the cost of insurance as well.

Today's legislation will only serve to increase both premiums and the number of uninsured.

It's time Republicans stop playing games with America's health care and focus the People's House on the issues the people care about: replacing the sequester and creating jobs.

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?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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.

I thank the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman does not want to do this, with all due respect. The chairman has said publicly he does not want to do this. The chairman has said publicly he wants to do what historically we have done: gone forth in a bipartisan way. That is the bill he constructed last year, and his colleagues did not bring it to the floor. That's the bill he constructed this year, and it was brought to the floor.

As Mr. Peterson has so eloquently stated, it was turned from a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill.

Why, why, why, do we always have to do that?

The response to its failure, because 62 of Mr. Lucas' party would not join him in the extraordinarily eloquent closing that he gave--not speaking to the motion to recommit--but said, look, I understand that some of you think this is too much and some of you think it is too little, but it's democracy. Yet the chairman's party rejected his bill. We reject it as well because you adopted three amendments that you knew beforehand were going to turn this into a more partisan bill.

So what did you do? You left this House and said, we are going to not

compromise, not try to create a broader coalition, but we are going to narrow the coalition, we are going to try to buy off those 62 folks who said they really don't like this bill at all anyway and get them to say, This is a Republican bill, let's pass it, knowing full well it will not pass the Senate, knowing full well that the President won't sign it.

Farmers need our agreement. I support it.

I don't think I have ever opposed a farm bill, not because I represent a vast farm district--I don't. But I understand that food and fiber is critical for my people, for our Nation, indeed, for much of the world.

So, ladies and gentlemen, let us reject this flawed process, this process which abrogates the pledge of 3 days of consideration for legislation, last night published, and we are asked to vote on it today.

Why? Because this is a very controversial provision, and they didn't want to have the light of day shine too long on this flawed process.

Let us reject this bill, let us reject a partisan bill, let us speak out for the farm community of America, and, yes, those who need nutritional help. Let us also speak for job growth in rural America, which the bill that the chairman reported out would have helped.

This bill ought to be rejected, and we ought to do our duty and our responsibility in a responsible and effective democratic, bipartisan, cooperative way.

I congratulate the chairman for what he would like to do.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a disgraceful abandonment of the most vulnerable people in our country.

The legislation Republicans have chosen to introduce--with just hours' notice and in blatant violation of their own stated `three-day' policy to read the bill--is missing a major part of any responsible farm bill.

By leaving funding for the supplemental nutrition assistance program--or ``SNAP''--out of this bill, they are effectively killing that program.

SNAP is a critical tool in keeping 47.5 million people--including many children and seniors--from experiencing hunger and illness.

It is one of our front-line programs against poverty in America.

My republican friends know that, even if they pass this bill through this House, the United States Senate will not consider a Farm Bill without SNAP funding.

Even conservative Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has said that splitting SNAP from the rest of the Farm Bill ``might fly in the House, but I don't think it's going to fly in the Senate.''

Our Republican friends claim to want fiscally responsible reforms to farm programs.

So it's ironic that their bill actually increases spending and the deficit by $1 billion in 2014--and it saves less over ten years than the Senate Farm Bill while creating permanent new farm programs.

The bill before us is just another exercise in house Republicans' political messaging game to make it appear that they are moving important legislation through Congress while, in reality, they refuse to play a constructive role in governing.

I urge its defeat.

Instead we ought to consider a farm bill that includes SNAP funding, after which we can go to conference with the Senate to achieve a real compromise.

If the Speaker really believes in regular order, which he has called for, Republicans should work with Democrats to pass a bipartisan farm bill and allow the conference process to move forward.

He has yet to do so with the budget, and I suspect that the reason we are not seeing regular order play out is because Republicans are not interested in compromise--only partisan politics.

Withdraw this bill; defeat this bill; restore regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for his information on the schedule. As the gentleman knows, we just passed a farm bill and I'm wondering how soon he might expect to move to go to conference on that bill.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information, and I am glad to hear that we will go to conference as soon as possible so we can consider that important piece of legislation. As the gentleman knows, there are substantial differences between the House and the Senate, and the sooner we get that bill done and whole, I think the better we will be.

You mentioned the Defense appropriations bill is coming to the floor. Does the gentleman expect that to be coming to the floor with an open rule?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. Was that a ``yes''?

Well, the good news is I don't have time to discuss that today, but perhaps at some time we will.

Immigration. Obviously, the Senate, as the gentleman so well knows, has passed a major piece of legislation, passed it 68-32. That bill is, I believe,

now with us. Can the gentleman tell us when we might be expecting immigration legislation on the floor?

I'm pleased to hear that. Of course, former President George Bush said, as the gentleman knows, just a few days ago, that we have a problem. The laws governing the immigration system aren't working, the system is broken, and he urged us to pass a bill. The chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has said the same thing that I think the gentleman just said. We are very hopeful that we will bring a comprehensive, which we believe is absolutely essential, immigration bill to the floor and to realization so we can fix a broken system. And, yes, give a pathway to citizenship for those who meet the criteria that we would set forth.

But I thank the gentleman for his comments; and if he would like to respond further, I'd yield.

If not, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, beginning this week, literally hundreds of thousands of civilian workers are being furloughed at defense installations in Maryland's Fifth District, across the State, and around the country. That means as of Monday, more than 650,000 hardworking, middle class defense employees are being forced to take a 20 percent pay cut for the remainder of the fiscal year.

It isn't because they are not doing their job well; they are.

It isn't because they don't have enough work; they do.

And it isn't because we don't need their talents, their experience, and their dedication to service; we need them more now than ever.

These employees are being furloughed because Congress has failed. Congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way. In fact, we passed a budget through the House of Representatives; the United States Senate has passed a budget. But the House of Representatives, Republican leadership, refuses to go to conference, refuses to follow regular order for which they've called so frequently, refuses to try to bring a compromise agreement back to this floor. This Congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way.

Instead, we now have the sequester--a senseless, stupid, irrational policy. It's a real shame, Mr. Speaker, that partisan politics is keeping some of our country's best and brightest from doing their jobs supporting our warfighters as they serve in Afghanistan and around the world.

Last Tuesday, I met with some of the outstanding men and women who work in civilian defense jobs at Pax River Naval Air Station in my district. When you go to Pax River, you often see uniformed and civilian personnel sitting side by side, working to accomplish the same mission, serving with the same dedication, partners in making our government stronger and making our defense stronger, each complementing the work of the other.

Now, as a result of these furloughs, one of them will get a 20 percent pay cut. One of them will be told to go home. One of them will be told you can't even volunteer to come back and get the job done. And the other will get one day a week of having to carry out the mission alone.

At that meeting, I heard from members of the Pax River community who are deeply concerned about the effects of these furloughs on our military readiness, our ongoing missions, on Department morale, and on the local economy. They were concerned about themselves, but they were mainly concerned about the job that was going to be left undone, finished late, undermining our security. One person scheduled to be furloughed this Friday told me:

I have a strong work ethic, and I want to get the job done,

whether it's late nights and weekends. And I'm worried

someone will come to me on a Thursday and I'll have to say, I

can't get the job done until Monday.

Because, Mr. Speaker, we are telling that person you can't come to work.

Another employee who was there last Tuesday emailed me afterward about the upcoming furlough writing:

There are many people in this organization who stretch

themselves day after day, happily, to get the work done that

needs to get done to support the Department of Defense and

the warfighter.

I will tell you, and so many Members on both sides of the aisle have met these folks, not these specific folks perhaps at Pax, but around this country who are dedicated, patriotic, hardworking, and want to make sure that their country is strong and that we serve our people.

This one constituent continues:

``I've already started to see some of these same people giving less of themselves because they feel our Congressmen,'' that's meaning all of us, ``and our country no longer put value in what they do.''

We are undermining the morale of the American workers. We are undermining the ability of the American Government to be as effective with respect to national defense as it needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, this sequester is harming morale and may lead skilled employees to leave for the private sector just when we need them most.

The effects of the sequester extend beyond the gates of our installations and affect entire communities with local businesses standing to lose as a result of belt tightening by families experiencing furloughs.

At the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, also in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, 97 percent of civilian personnel will be furloughed. That's more than 1,870 people.

Mr. Speaker, there's no reason why our civilian defense workers should be kept from doing their job just because Congress hasn't done its job. As long as the sequester remains in effect, and as long as Republicans refuse to compromise on a balanced approach to deficits that can end it, I'll keep coming to this floor and remind them exactly what is at stake. And I continue to call on Speaker Boehner to end the unnecessary delay in appointing budget conferees, which would be a significant step toward beginning negotiations in earnest that could lead to a big and balanced compromise on deficits.

We need to bring deficits down. We need to get our country on a fiscally sustainable path, but we need to do so in a rational way which does not undermine our national security, does not undermine the services being rendered to the people who are relying on them, and that does not send a message to our employees and those whom we need to recruit in the future that we are a good employer, we're a caring employer, we're an effective employer, and you ought to work for us, you ought to work for your country, for your fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we need to go to conference. We need to get rid of the sequester. We need to put America on a rational path to fiscal responsibility and effectiveness.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania--Philadelphia, in particular.

I had the great honor of serving as vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus when Bill Gray was chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and I had the honor of succeeding Bill Gray as chairman of the Democratic Caucus when he became the whip, the Democratic whip of our caucus.

Bill Gray was a very good friend of mine. I had the honor of serving with him, saw him as chairman of the Budget Committee, and all the roles that the gentleman from Philadelphia said. I will have further things to say later in the week.

I want to thank the gentleman for rising to honor a historic American, first African American leader in our party; but much more than that, an extraordinary individual, as the gentleman from Philadelphia has pointed out.

I join in a moment of silence in honor of our friend, a great American, a great Member of this body, and a great leader in his church and, as the gentleman has pointed out, United Negro College Fund, which gave so many opportunities to so many millions of young people in this country.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I know that I--before I get to my remarks--join all the House in saying thank you to your father and to the Greatest Generation, who not only fought the terrorists of their time but came home and built the greatest economy the world has ever seen and gave us all opportunities of our generation. I'm older than you are, but of our generation. So I thank you for your comments. I know that your father is extraordinarily proud of you and extraordinarily proud of the remarks you just made showing how proud you are of him.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the majority party is set to recess this House for a week, leaving in place their economy-stifling and irrational policy of sequester.

We talked about the Greatest Generation. I fear that this generation is going to be the greediest generation, who are not going to leave our children the great economy that was left to us but will leave an economy that is limping because of the policies that we pursued and the debt that we have incurred.

When sequester took effect 17 weeks ago, it was the culmination of an effort by the extreme wing of the majority party to impose severe and senseless cuts across the Federal Government without regard for the real consequences to our economy, our national security, and our most vulnerable citizens.

Let me review just some of its many consequences.

Head Start and title I:

We will lose between 70,000 and 130,000 seats in Head Start for some of the most vulnerable children in America; 10,000 teachers' jobs will be at risk in title I to teach some of our most vulnerable children.

Social Security Administration:

Furloughs will cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims.

Nutrition for vulnerable populations:

Four million fewer Meals on Wheels for our seniors who rely on them for a daily nutritional meal.

Housing:

125,000 housing vouchers, perhaps more, will be eliminated for people who need housing.

Unemployment insurance:

Emergency unemployment insurance past 26 weeks will be cut 11 percent for people who cannot find a job, in part

because there has been no jobs legislation put on this floor since we've been here this year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honored to rise tonight to lead a Special Order which honors a great American, a great colleague, and a great legislator whose service to this country and to this institution have been unmatched. It is appropriate that we rise tonight--appropriate particularly in light of the action that was taken and has been discussed today on the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me observe tangentially that the gentleman from Texas said something about cramming something down somebody's throat-- the Voting Rights Act. I will remind my colleagues that it was passed 388-23 in this House and 98-0 in the Senate in 2006.

Let me say we honor a man tonight who not only voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but has voted for every reauthorization of that act since that time. John Dingell came to Congress as a Member in 1955, winning a special election to fill the seat held by his father, John Dingell, Sr., who himself served from 1933-1955. John Dingell and his father have represented the people of southeastern Michigan in this House for eight decades. What an extraordinary testimony to the faith of their voters and the constancy and loyalty of their representation.

But very frankly, ladies and gentlemen, John's story in Congress actually began earlier than 1955. It really began in 1938, which is to say John Dingell, a year before I was born, and I'm one of the older Members. He came here as a young House page. We don't have the pages anymore, but nearly all of us remember seeing the pages, wide-eyed, sitting along the desk up front, sitting in the back, listening to speeches and watching floor proceedings as they waited to carry messages. That was John Dingell three-quarters of a century ago. The House of Representatives has been part of his life, and he has been part of it, for 75 years.

On December 8, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, 15-year-old John Dingell was in this Chamber as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stood at the rostrum and asked Congress to declare war against Japan, whose forces had just attacked Pearl Harbor on that day to which he referred as a ``day that will live in infamy.'' President Roosevelt spoke these words:

With the unbounded determination of our people, we will

gain the inevitable triumph.

Throughout his time in this House, as a page, as the son of a Congressman, as a Member himself, as a committee chairman, and as a leader on issues of national importance, John Dingell has taught us, who have served with him, that America's triumph is only inevitable if we bring to bear the unbounded determination of which President Roosevelt spoke.

In John Dingell's record 57 years and 188 days as a Member of Congress, he has approached our greatest challenges with his own unrivaled determination. In every Congress, for half a century, he continued his father's work of introducing legislation to expand health care coverage to all Americans, even in the many years when no one thought it possible to do so. But John Dingell stuck with it.

He stuck with it and eventually had the opportunity to help shape and vote for the Affordable Care Act, which will extend to millions and millions of Americans access to affordable, quality health care. Millions of Americans owe John Dingell a debt of gratitude for his faithfulness and the advocacy of their best interest.

John, in fact, was presiding over this House when it enacted Medicare in 1965. I told you he voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1965, but he presided over the adoption of Medicare. And he helped write the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the 1990 Clean Air Act, among many historic pieces of legislation that he has authored, fought for, and seen adopted.

But John has done more in this Chamber than shepherd key legislation to passage. He has been an unwavering voice for the working families and small business owners not just of southeastern Michigan, but of all America. He has been a giant in promoting and preserving the great American automobile industry and the millions of jobs that rely on it. He has been a mentor and a friend to me and so many current and former Members of the House.

My colleagues, John Dingell is a living link to an era when bipartisan compromise was a practiced reality, not just a slogan, not just something we say we're going to do, but something that was actually done. Members looked to John Dingell for his quick wit, his tenacious spirit, his extraordinary knowledge of legislation, and of the history of this House, and, yes, his warm heart.

John loves this House and has always worked to preserve its collegiality and its good order. His unrivaled skill as a legislator is matched by his sense of decency, his integrity, and his devotion to country. And he has never lost that determination that was sparked as FDR called our Nation to arms and to service. John Dingell took up arms. He served in the United States Army from 1944-1946 as a second lieutenant

who prepared to take part in the first wave of a planned invasion of Japan. Fortunately, that invasion did not occur; but John Dingell, as always, was ready, willing, and able.

John Dingell, my colleagues, as all of you know, has served America and its people for most of his life. But it is not the length of his service that we honor alone. It is even more importantly the quality of his service, the depth of his commitment, and the strength of his character that we honor tonight, and John Dingell who we honor always.

We are all better Representatives because of his example. I congratulate my friend on 75 years--75 years--in the House of Representatives, 57 of them as a Member. John Dingell has, with diligence, faithfulness, extraordinary skill and judgment, courage and fidelity to God and country, lived up to President Roosevelt's words. He has served with unbounded determination, and he has led a triumphant life. What an example for us all.

A triumphant life not because he won every fight, but because he never gave up. He never was unfaithful to his oath of office. He was never unfaithful to his pledge to support working men and women and, yes, everybody in this country.

My colleagues, John Dingell today is much like Tennyson's Ulysses who said:

We are not now that strength which in old days moved heaven

and Earth. That which we are, we are; on equal temper of

heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

John Dingell, he pledged to his people when first elected to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

And he has, indeed, done all of those. He has kept the faith, and we expect him to be keeping the faith for years to come, for that is the spirit of my friend, my colleague, a great legislator, a great American, John Dingell of Michigan.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back so Mr. Barrow can have the remaining balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would ask him a couple of questions about bills that are not on the announcement. The gentleman and I had a colloquy last week about student loans, that there's no action on those on the calendar for next week, if I'm correct.

Knowing, as we know, that student loan rates will double in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, and in light of our discussion last week, can the gentleman tell me whether there is any thought that there will be some action taken by us prior to the July 4 break?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Very frankly, I wasn't going to mention what happened on the floor today, but the gentleman has brought it up.

The gentleman is correct; the committee passed out a bipartisan bill. A lot of Democrats voted for that bill. The problem, of course, is that 62 Republicans voted against the bill as it was amended, notwithstanding the fact they voted for the last amendment that was adopted, which we think was a draconian amendment that would have hurt the poorest citizens in our country very badly.

So we turned a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. I will tell my friend, very frankly, you did the same thing--not you personally, but your side of the aisle did the same thing with respect to the Homeland Security bill, which was reported out on a voice vote from the Appropriations Committee, that we would have voted for on a bipartisan basis, except an amendment was adopted with your side voting overwhelmingly for it, knowing full well that our side could not support that.

So I tell you, with all due respect, Mr. Majority Leader, I wasn't going to bring up what happened today. But what happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill--necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America--that many of us would have supported and you turned it into a partisan bill.

Very frankly, 58 of the 62 Republicans who voted against your bill voted for the last amendment, which made the bill even more egregious-- we disagreed with the $20 billion cut. And you upped the--not you personally, but your side upped the ante.

So I will tell you, my friend, we're prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion. Very frankly, with respect to the student loan bill, it was very close to the President's bill. And we would have supported it had it been even closer to the President's bill.

What your bill does, as you know, puts those taking out a student loan at risk of having their interest rates substantially increased in the future. The President suggested, yes, let's get a variable rate that reflects market rates, but then when you take out the loan, just like you do with your house loan, you know what your interest rate is going to be. So we have a difference on that. I think it's a good faith disagreement on that.

But I will say to you that, yes, I have been concerned about the inability to take a bill reported out of the committee that is bipartisan in nature and not turn it into a partisan bill. That's what happened on this floor today. It was unfortunate, as I say, for farmers; it was unfortunate for consumers; and it was unfortunate for our country.

If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I will yield to him.

I thank the gentleman. We clearly have a profound disagreement.

When we were in the majority, we got no help on your side, Mr. Majority Leader--you remember that, zero, one, two, three, four--on programs that we felt very strongly about. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan dialogue. There was no opportunity to have bipartisan agreement.

The gentleman refers to regular order. Very frankly, the person who talks about regular order most is your Speaker. And you talk about regular order. We ought to pass a bill, and then we ought to go and have an agreement.

Some 90 days ago, I believe, we passed a budget. At your insistence, the Senate passed a budget. Good for them. We have not gone to conference. You have not provided an opportunity to go to conference. You haven't appointed conferees. That's regular order. The gentleman wants it on one bill but apparently not all bills.

I tell my friend we want regular order. We want to go to conference. We want to undo the breaking of an agreement that we made in the Budget Control Act, which said there would be a firewall between domestic and defense. You have eliminated that firewall.

You have assumed sequester is in place. Sequester is bad for this country. You and I tend to agree on that, I think. But the fact is there's no legislation to undo that sequester--except the legislation you talked about passing in the last Congress, which is dead, gone and buried. Yes, we want regular order.

The reason the bill lost today is because 62 of your Members rejected Mr. Lucas' plea--which I thought was a very eloquent plea--in which he said: I know some of you don't think there's enough reform in this bill, and some of you think there's too much reform. But Mr. Peterson and I brought out a bill that was a bipartisan bill, supported by the majority of Democrats and the majority of--I think all Republicans, maybe, on the committee; I'm not sure of that, Mr. Leader. But the fact of the matter is it was a bipartisan bill--just as Homeland Security was a bipartisan bill--and it was turned into a partisan bill.

You respond that the Southland amendment was for reforms. That's exactly what Mr. Lucas was talking about. He was saying some people don't think we went far enough and some people think we went too far. Mr. Southerland thought we hadn't gone far enough. And 58 Republicans voted for Southerland and then turned around and voted against the bill, the very reforms you're talking about.

So don't blame Democrats for the loss today. You didn't bring up the farm bill when it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. Last year you didn't even bring it to the floor because your party couldn't come together supporting their chairman's bill.

So that's where we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to bring up that bill at all. What happened, happened.

Very frankly, when we lost on the floor, it was because we lost on the floor when we were in the majority. We produced 218 votes for almost everything we put on this floor. Don't blame Democrats for the failure to bring 218 Republicans to your bipartisan Lucas-supported and Peterson-supported piece of legislation on the floor. We believe that that loss, that partisanship on this bill, hurt farmers, hurt consumers, hurt our country.

Let's bring that bill back to the floor and have a vote on it as it was reported out on a bipartisan basis. I think it would pass. Maybe not because of your votes. That's been your problem all along.

Don't blame Democrats for the loss of that bill. Don't blame Democrats for being partisan.

We knew about those amendments, Mr. Leader, just as you knew about them. You knew we were very much opposed to some of those amendments, notwithstanding the fact all the leadership, I believe--I haven't looked at the record--voted for those amendments just as they voted for the King amendment on Homeland Security.

Yeah, you pushed my button.

I'm prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I'm not prepared to work in a bipartisan fashion when it's said, This is what we agree on-- meaning your side--so you better take it if we're going to have any agreement. That's not the way it works. It never worked that way in America. That's not what America is about. America is about expecting us to work together.

This bill was reported out overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. It could have been passed on a very large bipartisan vote, and was precluded by the actions taken through these amendments on the floor, most of which we did not support. You knew we did not--not only you. Your party knew that we did not support.

So I'm surprised when you talk to me about regular order and there's nothing--nothing--to do on the budget conference that you wanted the Senate to pass a budget. They did. You have just told me that you wanted regular order and that we should have passed the farm bill so we could work together.

You're assuming, of course, that the Senate would have gone to conference. I hope they would have, and I think they would have, because I talked to the chair. She would have wanted to go to conference, assuming we got votes on the Republican side of the aisle.

But we also wanted to go to conference in regular order on the budget to solve the stark differences between the two parties. That's the only way you are going to get from where we are to where you need to be, by having a conference and trying to come to an agreement.

My own premise is, Mr. Leader, that you don't have a conference because there is nothing to which Patty Murray could agree, that Mr. Ryan could agree, that he could bring back to your caucus and get a majority of votes for, because they are for what you passed and nothing more than that. We are $91 billion apart. If we divide it in two and just said, ``Okay, we'll split the difference,'' you couldn't pass it on your side of the aisle, and I think you know that.

I don't know that I have any more questions that would be particularly useful, but I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader continues to want to blame the Democrats for his inability, and the Republicans' inability, to give a majority vote to their own bill.

Maybe the American people, he thinks, can be fooled. You're in charge of the House. You have 234 Members. Sixty-two of your Members voted against your bill. That's why it failed. We didn't whine, very frankly, when we were in charge, when I was the majority leader, about we didn't pass the bill. We got 218 votes for our bills, and it was pretty tough. We got zero from your side. You got 24 from our side to help you. Mr. Peterson stuck to his deal.

Now, on the budget, you say we've got different philosophies. Yes, we do. Mr. Gingrich gave a speech on this floor about different philosophies in 1997 or '98. He was speaking to your side of the aisle. He was talking about the ``perfectionist caucus.'' He made an agreement with President Clinton, which to some degree was responsible for having balanced budgets, but your side thought it was not a good deal. Not all of your side. In a bipartisan vote, frankly, we passed the deal, the agreement, the compromise, that was reached between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton.

A lot of your folks said, No, no. Our way or the highway.

He gave a speech that he called the ``Perfectionist Caucus'' speech. That's what, in my view, I'm hearing on the budget. Yes, we have differences. The American people elected a Democratic President. They elected a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The only way America's board of directors and President will work is if we come together and compromise.

The place to compromise under regular order is in a conference with our ideas and their ideas meeting in conference. The most central document that we need to do every year is to do a budget. But you're not going to conference. Your side will not appoint conferees. Your side will not move to go to conference. Patty Murray wants to go to conference. Senator Reid wants to go to conference. Your side over on the Senate won't go to conference, in my view, largely because they know you don't want to go to conference and they don't want to make a deal, they don't want to compromise on what their position is.

We will take no blame for the failure of the FARRM Bill--none, zero. As much as you try to say it, you can't get away from the statistic. Sixty-two, otherwise known as 25 percent, of your party voted against a bill, which is why we didn't bring it to the floor last year when it was also reported out in a bipartisan fashion.

I know you are going to continue and your side is going to continue to blame us that you couldn't get the votes on your side for your bill because you took a bipartisan bill. That's what Mr. Lucas was saying--I thought he was very articulate, I thought he was compelling--in pleading with your side: Join us, join us. It doesn't go as far as you would like.

And on reform, you talk about reform, and that's a good thing to talk about, like we're against reform.

The Senate bill has reform in it, Mr. Leader. The Senate bill has reform in it. Now, it's not in terms of dollars cutting poor people as much as this bill does, but it cuts. It has reform in it. What some of them want--what apparently your side wants--is your reform, not compromised reform. Mr. Lucas brought to the floor $20 billion and couched it as reform and said on the floor it may not be enough for some and it may be too much for others, but it is a compromise. He was right, but it was rejected by 25 percent of your party--they rejected the chairman--and that's why this bill failed.

Unless the gentleman wants to say something further, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his work, and I thank Mr. Lucas for his work.

We struggle in this Congress to try to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor. It's a shame.

I've normally voted for the farm bill for a reason I will express here. First of all, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation. It sets Federal policy in a range of areas that deeply affect the lives of farmers, their communities, and consumers. But it also makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger, especially children.

It's a shame that we could not consider the farm bill on its merits without undermining its credibility with what we clearly believe are not reforms and not the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.

It's so simple to say that. I've heard that for all the time I've been here in Congress. Let's just cut out fraud, waste, and abuse. Everybody wants to cut out fraud, waste, and abuse; but cutting out assistance for hungry people is neither fraud, nor waste nor abuse. Well, it may be abuse.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP as it is called, protects over 46 million Americans who are at risk of going without sufficient food. Nearly half of those are children. Are there some reforms that are needed? Perhaps. And the Senate has made those reforms in a moderate, considered way.

The average monthly benefit per participant last year according to the USDA was $133.41. I challenge any Member of this House to live on $133.41 for food. That's $4.45 a day.

At a time when millions remain out of work struggling to support themselves and their family as they seek jobs, it would be irresponsible to make the kinds of cuts that are proposed in this bill. No one in the richest country on the face of the Earth should go hungry in this country.

Yet that's exactly what this bill would do, slashing $20.5 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and putting 2 million of our fellow Americans at risk.

Feed the hungry; clothe the naked; give shelter to the homeless-- that's not a political policy. That's a moral policy. Our faiths teach us that.

While we've cut millions in funding in this bill, this Congress has done nothing to advance legislation that will help create jobs or opportunities to help expand our middle class. While it's important that Congress provide certainty to the agricultural community, which I support, this unbalanced bill takes the wrong approach on these cuts to

Madam Chair, I'm disappointed. This ought to be a bipartisan bill. Mr. Peterson wants it to be a bipartisan bill and many of our people and, as a matter of fact, a majority of our people supported it in committee.

I think the chairman wants it to be a bipartisan bill. I understand he has to deal within the framework of his caucus like every chairman has to do on either side of the aisle. I understand that. But it is a shame.

A bill that ought to be bringing us together for people who provide this country with food and fiber and, indeed, provide a lot of the world with food and fiber, that we have put this almost poison pill--I don't know whether it's going to be a poison pill--but almost poison pill in it, I regret that. It's not worthy of our country. It's not worthy of the morals of this Nation.

But I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for their efforts to try to bring us together. Whether they've done so or not, we'll have to see.