request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from man men, mr. ellison, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from america's poor families. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, for unanimous consent request.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. brown: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the children of america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i the - i yield to gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. i butterfield: mr. speaker, have a parliamentary inquiry. mr. speaker, i have finally received a copy of the bill. it appears to have no nutrition title at all, is this a printing error? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a

parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. pain-capable unborn child protection mr. speaker, i ask -- mr. payne: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate concurs in the house amendment to the senate as dment to h.r. 588, cited the vietnam veterans acknowledgment act of 2013. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i yield to the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. beatty, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and

extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. johnson, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because we are the conscience of the congress, the majority of people getting food stamps are not african-americans. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill

because it takes the safety net away from america's poor families. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from america's poor families. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from

texas, mr. freen, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. -- mr. green, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. kelly, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ask elly: i rise and unanimous consent to revise and extend in strong opposition to the underlyle rule and bill. -- underlying rule and bill. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. clarke: i rise in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it starves america's children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentlewoman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wilson, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. am mcgovern: mr. speaker, i happy to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food from children and it increases the number of starving children in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts.

ms. jackson lee: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. one is allowed to give explanation for their opposition and those words are to be counted as part of the unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the woman exceeded those simple declare tif statements. m trying to be fair with this. ms. jackson lee: can you declare, mr. speaker, what the interpretation is for excessiveness? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will judge each statement as to its simple declare tif nature. ms. jackson lee: continuing the parliamentary inquiry. is the amount of passion in your voice in opposition to the idea that this bill creates more starving children -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has not stated a point. mr. mcgovern: how much time has the speaker charged us for these unanimous consents thus far? the speaker pro tempore: -- and

a quarter. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield to the gentlewoman from california, ms. bass, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. bass: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying bill because it contributes to the hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying -- and the rule because it increases hunger in america. mr. speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will state her inquiry. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, is it in order to amend the underlying bill and the rule that currently provides for billions in subsidies to corporate farms while children and families go hungry, school lunch programs are decimated

and meals on wheels are taken from the disabled and senior citizens? the speaker pro tempore: the manager of the rule would have to yield for any amendment. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from working families. mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. scott: mr. speaker, will not this day go down in history -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not stating an inquiry. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . rush: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill, to

the rule and to the underlying the because it takes safety net away from america's poor children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and strong y remarks in opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor, it violates the

long-standing partnership between agriculture producers and our nation's nutrition programs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. bishop: isn't it true, mr. speaker, that this rule takes and bifurcates the bill that came out of the authorizing committee and separates it into two separate bills in a way that ultimately hurts the working poor of this country? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not interpret the underlying bill. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from america's poor families and takes food out of

the mouths of children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from south carolina for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill, the rule and the underlying bill because it significantly increases poverty in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'll yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases poverty in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, as chair of the c.h.c., i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's poor children and senior citizens. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. for what purpose does -- mr. hoyer: parliamentary inquiry. i've been listening, as you've heard, to the judgment. what the gentleman just did, mr. hinojosa, was one sentence

but he gave a second reason he was opposed. the first reason because it increased poverty and the second, undermines children. that was the same sentence. it seems there was little substantive difference between the statement that preceded it for which you did not charge time and for the statement from he gentleman from the hispanic caucus. i'd like to understand the parliamentary difference that the speaker perceived in those two statements? the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the gentleman engaged in embellishment. mr. hoyer: he stated two reasons he was opposed. is the chair's ruling that only one reason will be allowed to be articulated by a member for opposition to this bill? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman also prefaced his remarks. mr. hoyer: he did do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. hoyer: and explained to the american public presumably who

is watching this, mr. speaker, of the framework he's representing, representing a large group of americans, hispanic americans, who have a large number of represents in this body. can he not explain he's the person from maryland, for instance, or the person from some other state? the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the gentleman engaged in embellishment. the gentleman from massachusetts. . mr. mcglovepb i yield to mr. meeks for a unanimous consent. mr. meeks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor, it leaves children without food, and it hurts seniors on an everyday basis. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. hoyer: parliamentry inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. hoyer: in explaining your

answer to the last parliamentary inquiry, you indicated 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 contell plays of a -- contemplation of a unanimous consent request. if we start parsing that people can only articulate one reason, i would suggest to our friends, the parliamentarians and speaker, 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. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is looking at a simple declarative statement not multiple declarative statements.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. hoyer: further parliamentary inquiry. there was one declarative sentence. it had two commomas in it. if we are going to paragraphs -- pars this to that extent, i suggest to the speaker and frankly to those advising the speaker we are going down a road which is very dangerous. clearly if there was an extended time one could understand that. ut 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 the -- 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will continue to evaluate each individual declarative statement and make the judgment there with regards to embellishment, according to the previous statements that have been made. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: could i inquire how much time has been charged against us for these unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes total. mr. mcgovern: parliamentary inquiry. would it be in order for me to ask for unanimous consent that the time that has been charged gainst us be restored?

>> i object to that. the speaker pro tempore: the objection is heard. the gentleman from massachusetts. m mcgovern: further parliamentary inquiry, i didn't make the request yet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman can make -- mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent that the time charged against us be restored given the fact we are operating under a closed rule on a very important piece of legislation where a lot of members would like to be heard. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the gentleman's request? mr. sessions: there is objection. the speaker pro tempore: ok. there is objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it violates a decades-old principle uniting urban and rural interests together and feeding hungry people. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentleman's time will be charged the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentlewoman from from new hampshire, ms. kuster. ms. kuster: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that revise and extend my remarks in very strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because veterans in my istrict including children and patriotic families all across america are hungry. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, for a unanimous consent request. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying -- farm rule and underlying bill because it increases hunger of our constituents throughout this

great country of ours. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield to the -- sorry yield to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this mean-spirited farm bill rule and underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from those most vulnerable among us, our children. is this what compassionate conservatism is all about? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: identify -- i yield to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong

opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger not only in my congressional district but hunger in all congressional districts in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, is it the ruling of the chair that if in stating my unanimous consent i state a single reason, it is not charged to the time of

the gentleman from massachusetts, if i state several reasons in the same sentence because i cited multiple reasons for requesting unanimous consent that it is charged? assuming do i it dispassionately, quietly. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not going to respond to a hypothetical. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america, hurts seniors, and hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and underlying bill because it hurts the working poor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from

missouri, mr. cleaver, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to request to revise and nt opposition marks in o the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because, mr. peaker, there is a five-decade symbiosis between urban america and the farm community. i rarely come to this well for a lot of reasons, most of them come ve, because i didn't . congress to make an enemy i came here to make a difference. i'm not here, mr. speaker,

trying to put politics above productive policy. ideology above the injured. i'm not mere -- here to foment division but inclusion. i'm not here because i believe in capitulation but in compromise. i believe that this bill is doing enormous damage not only to the body politic but to this nation. and we, the elected leaders of the united states congress -- this is not some little club, we are the congress of the united states of america. the most powerful nation on this planet. and we can take care of all of the people that are poor children in rural areas that i represent. and i will never turn my back on them. i will never turn my back on children in the urban core.

mr. speaker, i object to this bill because this bill is not just going to create tension among us, but the people of this country who depend on us. they depend on us. it's not going to go to an alternative body to redress their concerns. if we are about anything, it is about trying to take care of these people. that's why we are here. i suffer from vertigo, and the only way i can stop from wiggling around and fainting when i get dizzy is to keep my eyes on something that doesn't move. i get frustrated and dizzy being in this body. and the only way i can stand up and keep my eyes on something that doesn't move. and the thing that does not move are the people of the united states, particularly those who are hurting. they don't move. my mind is going to stay right there on people who don't move. the hurt, the wounded, we got to

make sure we take care of everybody in this country, mr. speaker. i will not, i shall not, i cannot be silent. as we continue to divide the nation, and then we think we are doing something good because we are able to say something nasty to somebody. the people of this country deserve better. we deserve better. i've never attacked people on the bay siffs their party or ideology and i won't do it. i will not do it, but i will not abandon what's right. i will not abandon the things that i keep my eyes on. will not support this bill. there are people in rural ounties that i represent where celine county, missouri, a rural county, has greater poverty than

jackson county where kansas city sits. this is not about trying to system that kind of we put in place to protect the rural areas. i'm concerned about the rural areas. i was born in one in texas. my daddy sent my mother to college when i was in eighth grade. i never lived in a house with indoor plumbing until i was 8 years old. i lived in public housing. my daddy struggled. with a little help, with a little help my daddy sent four children through college. we moved out of public housing. my dad lives in his own house right now. all people are asking for in some cases just a little help. just a little help. and who can we thurn -- they turn to? i hope, i actually even pray that it's the united states congress.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman will state his inquiry. the gentleman is correct. 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry, just so -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. mcgotsche: 4 1/2 minutes total for all the unanimous consent requests? the speaker pro tempore: 7 1/4. mr. mcgovern: notwithstanding the fact we have a closed rule and everybody stayed within the limit maybe with a little

exception. i would ask unanimous consent that we be -- that our time be reinstated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has requested. is there objection? mr. sessions: there is objection. the speaker pro tempore: there is objection. the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman is recognized. >> i'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair. mr. bishop: i move that -- the speaker pro tempore: there is a ruling before the house at this time -- there is no ruling before the house at this time. mr. hoyer: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, would it be in order to move a motion to the time not be charged mr. mcgovern, the representative of the -- the

ranking member of the rules committee, is there a motion that we could move on? would that be in order, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: there is not an appropriate motion on that topic. who seeks time? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. hoyer: i'm reluctant to move something that the speaker is 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. the bill was not noted for consideration until last night. this bill comes to the floor ' h less than 12 hours

preparation. while i understand the gentleman's view, but it would seem not so much because it's the rule but because it is fair there are strong deeply held feelings on this bill and i would urge my friend to withdraw his objection. we're talking about five, six, seven, eight -- i don't know 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'd consider that. mr. sessions: in mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i object. i will when i receive the time offer an explanation. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. and to the gentleman of the minority whip, i would encourage him to please

recognize that his request, as my dear friend, the gentleman, 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're 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, 200 -- sorry -- 24 democrats voted for it, 172 democrats voted against it. this meant that the farm bill did not pass. 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 could be hoped, an analysis of that bill was done. once again remembering that 24 democrats helped to pass the previous bill. we're attempting to then separate, bifurcate, offer today a rule and the underlying legislation which hopefully will pass which would go to senate, and the

because they have passed their own farm bill, has included in provisions where they discuss snap. as a result of that, that will be should 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 esolution. 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 ell as mr. lucas from oklahoma , would go to 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 to cut $4 billion, and we would not have a position to cut a penny. i believe that this is an nest attempt to get us to go by passing part of the farm bill to go to conference. and the tactics to -- against that is to simply keep us from going to conference and 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 to 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. and i would yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. hoyer: this side of the aisle believes the passage of the farm bill is very, very important. it's 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 strongly in favor of the view of passing a farm bill, number one, i tell my friend. secondly, i tell the gentleman, as he well knows, the farm bill for the past two years has passed out of the committee with a majority of democrats and i think maybe unanimous but certainly 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, the chairman of the committee, was in support of the farm bill, and in fact, i'd indicate, he thought there would be sufficient democrats to -- 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 you would undercut his ability and the democrats' ability to support the bill. very frankly, i tell my friend what has happened, the farm bill was a bipartisan bill supported by a majority of democrats in the committee, as

the gentleman knows, and by the ranking democrat, mr. peterson. it came to the floor, however, and that partisanship was undermined by the amendments that were adopted, and i think that was to the knowledge certainly of mr. lucas. i know mr. lucas knew 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 with clearly recognizing there was opposition in your party and opposition in our party so that the way this could have passed in a constructive way, in my view, would be had we received a bipartisan compromise. unfortunately, as is too frequently the case, we've 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 -- you'll need a substantial number than 62, because i think we don't believe, as you can tell, this is a process that we can support, but it is unfortunate because the gentleman is correct. i respect the gentleman's observation. it's important we pass the farm bill, but for over half a century, we've passed a farm bill in a bipartisan fashion with consideration for the nutrition of people in our country to make sure those that are without food -- mr. sessions: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. hoyer: can i take 30 seconds? mr. sessions: 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

forth right -- forthright and honest of what is in the bill and what our intents are. and i would hope that the gentleman would recognize that at we have carefully done is excluded some extraneous pieces which might mean -- if the gentleman -- 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. d what we're trying to do is take this to conference without any decision thereon. and 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. and the gentleman, i hope, does recognize that the senate has spoken, our conference 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 that current law would prevail. then current law would prevail because we've come to no decision therein. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will allow me to respond. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, first of all, i urge every single democrat and republican to oppose this rule and to

oppose this bill. this is a closed rule. closed. no amendments. closed. and contrary to the claims by some, this bill is not eye departmentcal to the bill we vote -- identical to the bill we voted on a few weeks ago. the majority has dramatically changed this farm bill. this 608-page bill introduced an hour before the rules committee met last night has several major changes that we know about. i say know about because we really don't know what's in this bill and we do not know how some of the changes will affect long-term farm policy. something new in this bill is the repeal the 1949 permanent law. what does that mean? what impact will that language have on future farm policy? who knows. there hasn't been a single hearing on this language nor a markup. nothing. nothing. this bill also eliminates the entire nutrition title which includes more than just food stamps. it includes moneys for food banks, emergency food assistance and food for our

senior citizens. the whole title is gone. three weeks ago the farm bill was defeated because democrats were strongly opposed to the assault on nutrition programs and quite frankly some right-wing republicans voted no because they don't like any government program. rather than compromising, republican leaders have veered sharply to the right trying to win back the republican tea partiers who voted no and the as a result is the bill before us. -- and the result is the bill before us. what were the right wingers and the republican conference promised in order to change their vote from no to yes? what is the back room deal they've negotiated with the republican leadership? how deep of a cut in the snap program were they promised? now, last night in the rules committee we were told there's nothing to worry about. even though title 4 is not included in this legislation, it's still conferenceable if this bill were to go to conference with the senate. we were told rather than the

$20.5 billion cut to snap that was in the house bill that it was possible we could end up with a senate-passed $4.5 billion cut or we could end up with no cuts at all. does anybody believe that either of those two scenarios is likely or even possible? in this congress, i have great respect for the chairman of the agriculture committee, mr. lucas. but i do not trust this republican leadership. i spent a great deal of time on this house floor during the debate on this bill a few weeks ago and i heard republicans speaker after republican -- republican speaker after republican speaker attack snap, attack poor people. we had nasty amendment after nasty amendment attached to the bill attacking the nutrition programs that benefit the most vulnerable in america. some of the rhetoric that was spoken on this floor quite frankly was offensive and leading up to today's vote, i read with great interest recent quotes from republican members, some who called for sunsetting

of the food stamp program and some who call for deeper cuts in the program. . i want to say for the record to my friend from texas, the 47 million people who are on snap are not extraneous. they are important. they are part of our community. we should not diminish their struggle. let's be clear. this attempt to separate the nutrition title from the rest of the farm bill is all about gutting the nutrition title. it's about -- it's all about going after americans who are struggling in poverty. it's all about denying the working poor the right to food. so when we are asked to trust republican leaders, to give them the benefit of the doubt, i can't. trust is something that is earned. and the behavior of this republican house towards programs that help the working poor, the needy, and the vulnerable has been appalling. mr. speaker, this is a bad bill. this is a bad process. it should be defeated.

i reserve the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i thank you very much. i 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, 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 172 democrats voted against the bill. and 171 republicans voted for the bill and sending it to conference.

the height of really the work that we did 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's 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 my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it's sinful, it increases poverty in america, and takes the food off the table of american families. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. does the gentleman make a point

of order? mr. hoyer: i make a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. hoyer: the point of order is in fact consistent with your rulings today that the gentleman 's unanimous consent request was not any different in substabs or -- substance or in length than the unanimous consent request 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. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? not, the chair is prepared to rule. the decision on how and when a member will be charged in a

debate, in a matter confined to the discretion of the chair, the question on weather the form of a unanimous consent request is in order under the rules is a matter subject to the ruling from the chair. in the opinion of the chair, it is not in order to embellish a unanimous consent request with debate remarks in the form of a debate -- and the form of the debate are charged to the member yielding. >> i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the request by the gentleman from louisiana contained remarks in the nature of a debate. the point of order is overruled. mr. hoyer: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand in the judgment of the house? does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i move to lay the

appeal on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye. those opposed -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 196. the motion to table is adopted. without objection, a motion to railroad he can is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the statement of administration policy opposing this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished

ranking member of the committee on rules, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i want everybody who may be watching this or in here shot to understand that when the house of representatives cannot pass a farm bill we have reached a new low. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. ms. slaughter: the reverence in which we hold our farmers is so strong that the farm bill could almost be a part of the pledge of allegiance. i want to point out to you that this is the second time that this house is going to likely not be able to pass a farm bill. i know i don't have to point out to my constituents on both sides of the aisle that the snap program, the nutrition program, the school lunch program, the meals on wheels

and what we do to feed people in this country is also a farm program. because, believe it, people, that's where the food comes from. so when you take those programs away, you also hurt the farmers. we had a pretty offensive attempt here a few weeks ago to defund the program so i do not trust -- i'm sorry to say -- the majority with trying to do something about this bill. in fact, i make a prediction right now, if they decide to bring up the nutrition program as a free-standing bill, there's not a chance anywhere -- better state it that way -- that that could possibly pass the house. simply because we were told that the fact that the republicans took the snap, newt trigs program out of it -- nutrition program out of it would not be construed by the american people as if they're opposed to feeding people. it's just that they thought it was a piece of extraneous matter that they could deal with maybe in om other way.

what a tragedy that is for all of us who have to go back home and try to explain to the people that we represent that this house, the most history, nal house in spending $25 million a week to operate the house of representatives, that our biggest trick here is to pass a bill that we know from the outset will never see the light of day. almost all of them have the statement from the administration policy that no way in the world would the president ever sign any kind of bill like that. enough already. enough. we've disgraced ourselves before the country, we've disgraced ourselves in front of the world. we're raising a generation of children right now who have not been adequately -- could i have one more minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: 30 seconds, all right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'll end up this way. i've been here a while, i've never seen anything in this dysfunction. i really am embarrassed to say

today that trying to feed people could be a reason why they would stop the farm bill, which as i said has been a bipartisan bill, has gone through like a hot knife through butter. started doing farm bills in the united states , this is the lowest of the low . when we can't pass this, you know, ladies and gentlemen, they can't run the house. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 here today because

bill did not pass. my party and our friends, the democrats, did not supply enough votes to make sure it would move forward. and my party -- 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 my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that the reason we do not support the farm bill was because the farm bill that the republicans put on the floor would throw two million of our fellow citizens off of the food stamp program. the price of the farm bill should not be to make people hungry in america. i yield -- i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: the reason the farm bill lost is because 62 of your people wouldn't support 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. so your response has been -- and so your response has been to abandon them altogether so you can get those votes back. isn't that a shame? yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will be reminded to address remarks to the chair, not to other members of the body. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. 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. and that is what we're attempting to do today. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include in this bill a straight re-authorization of the snap program, without any cuts to current policy which would be the same language as the chairman of the rules committee has promised would be included in the final product. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yield to such a unanimous consent? mr. sessions: i would not yield for that purpose. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this point it's my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on behalf of feeding the american people. it seems a very fundamental thing. biblical in nature. familywise, a very important priority for all of us. except maybe not in this house of representatives. want to thank congresswoman delauro for her relentless persistent advocacy to feed the hungry in our country. but i rise today and i thank them over and over again to once again thank the congressional black caucus. when they came to the floor today to speak in the manner that they did against this legislation and for values that our country shares about being a community, they spoke not just for the congressional black caucus and for their constituents, they spoke for america. they spoke for america. they have fought this fight over and over again.

the inference to be drawn from their leadership on this is not that the black community is the community that benefits from food stamps. some people in the community do. overwhelmingly they're people in your districts, in rural america. they're people in rural america who really need us to pass this legislation. you are taking food out of the mouths of your own poor constituents. poverty in america, poverty -- i'm saying the word on the floor of the house. poverty, poverty, poverty, poverty. poverty in america seems to be a word that people get nervous about. poverty in america, among our children, is something shameful. but it is a reality. and it has an impact on children, to have the uncertainty in their lives that poverty brings. and when that poverty says to

those children, one in four of you are going to sleep hungry tonight, that's just wrong. and it's wrong for america, it is not consistent with our values, it does not represent the sense of community that makes america strong and that makes america great. so, to marcia fudge, to the distinguished chair of the caucus, marcia fudge, mr. cleaver, the former chair, mr. clyburn, our distinguished assistant leader, to all of my colleagues in the c.b.c. and champion on the poverty issue, congresswoman barbara lee, i could name all of you because you've all been out there on the forefront of this. our democracy is as strong as we are as a people. the middle class is the backbone of america. the aspirations of all americans to become part of the middle class is what we should be addressing in congress. and what are we doing?

190 days we've been in this session and no jobs bill yet. the leadership of the republican party says they want regular order. they want regular order. , over ssed a budget bill three months ago the senate passed a budget. the regular order would be to go to conference, get rid of the sequestration, the sequester, and to proceed with a bill that invests in america, mr. hoyer's make it in america, invests in innovation in america, build the infrastructure of america, create jobs and to do so in a way that builds community. strengthensed middle class, grows our -- strengthens the middle class, grows our economy with jobs. the distinguished leadership of this republican party in the house said they want regular order and they have respect for their committees. well, the agriculture committee in a bipartisan way, in a bipartisan way passed a bill out of the committee. i didn't like the bill.

it wouldn't have been a bill i would have written. but it was -- republicans had the leadership, democrats cooperated, a bipartisan bill came out of committee. the rumor was, and i guess it was just a rumor, but it floated, that if they could come out with a bipartisan bill it would be taken up on the floor. the bill that we have here, as little we know about it because it emerged in the middle of the night, bears no resemblance to the bill that came out of committee. actions of the republican leadership have been disrespectful to the committee process. so don't hand us the regular rder argument. the audacity to split off the nutrition part of this bill is so stunning, it would be shocking except this is the house that shocks.

i would say this is the worst thing you have done but there's been stiff competition i can't fully say that. but when you take food out of you uths of babies and prevent a bill that doesn't address our food needs in our country, what are you thinking? or are you thinking? or are you thinking? so i just -- i thank you, c.b.c., for your leadership on this. i thank you, jim mcgovern and rosa delauro and all of you, because this is a fight you are making for everyone in america .o live in a country of value of values that include our faith and our faith tells us that to minister to the needs of god's creation is an act of worship. to ignore those needs, as this bill does, is to dishonor the god who made us. this is very wrong.

this, even in this place, crosses the threshold that we should never go past, to never go past. this is totally out of the question. i'm a mom. one of the reasons i got involved in politics, i see it as an extension of a role as a mother, five kids, and many grandchildren. god blessed us. what drove me to this, i saw all that my kids had, all the opportunity, all the love, all the concern, all the rest of it and i thought the best thing we could all do is to make sure that our children, for their own welfare, grow up in a country where all of america's children were treated with respect as we meet their needs. that's just not happening here today. i call upon our friends in the faith community, and they're here on this issue as well as

most of the farmers groups and all the rest. there's nobody -- there's nobody outside this body who supports this bill who cares about the values that we all profess to have within these walls. so again taking food out of the mouths of babies, that's a good policy? i don't think so. no on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: members are again reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to other members of the body. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. 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 has 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. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from texas controls the time. the house will be in order. mr. sessions: we have great respect for the many people who have lost their job 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 and that is what we're attempting to do today. so 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 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert from bob ord a letter stallman, the president of the american farm bureau federation in opposition to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: at this time point, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, a leader on this issue, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. a vote for this bill is a vote to end nutrition programs in america. members on the other side of

the aisle have already expressed that this morning. imagine referring to the nutrition title of the farm ill as extraneous. extraneous. dealing with hunger. dealing with people who have fallen on those hard times. dealing with their food insecurity and they're being hungry and kids going to bed hungry at night in this nation is extraneous. but that says it all. their ls you where values are. before we consider the content of this legislation, take a minute to review what has happened. shortly before 8:00 p.m. last night, the majority posted a 608-page bill online announced a meeting to consider the bill. the majority violated their own rule of allowing at least three days to review legislation before a vote. i have a copy of the bill right here.

this is the bill. 608 pages. have my colleagues read all of this 608 pages? have they taken the time to know what's in it? do they understand that in 2014, in fact, that what they have done adds to the deficit? no. instead we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill designed to inflict grave harm. and even more pernicious is the substance of this bill which throws millions of american families aside. this removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill with no indication that the majority intends to take up those programs in the near future. let's be clear about what this means. food stamps are the critical central area of our social safety net. helping over 47 million americans, nearly half of them

are children. 99% of recipients live below the poverty line. 75% of households leaving this aid include a child, a senior citizen or an individual with a disability. these are the individuals and republican hat this majority has just called extraneous. they are not extraneous. the bill before us would mean he death now of the food stamp program, the other nutrition programs that have been part of the farm bill for decades. this bill is immoral and it is a serious risk to our society. 532 farm groups sent the speaker a letter opposing the splitting off of nutrition program. bishop stockton, other religious leaders called food stamps, i quote, one of the most effective and important federal programs to combat hunger in the nation and again, quote, a crucial part of the

farm bill releaving pressure on an overwhelmed parishes, charities, food banks, pantries and other emergency food providers. and yet this bill provides the way to gut the food stamp program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: can the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delauro: historically the farm bill has been a safety net for farmers and families. it's enjoyed bipartisan support up until now, until this a vote for this bill would end nutrition programs in america, to break the bipartisan compact that the farm bill represented for decades. it takes food out of the mouths of hungry children, seniors, veterans, disabled. it is immoral and these people are not extraneous. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired.

members are reminded to utilize the time allocated to them. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, last night we had the gentleman, mr. lucas, chairman of the agriculture committee, who approached the committee and said he would like for us to consider this bill on farm bill portions. he indicated he would follow-up and had every intent to follow-up with a companion part which would be the separation of these two which would be the snap portions. today we are attempting to offer the bill on the farm policy, and we are doing that. and we intend to be able to put these items together, 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, and we intend to make sure that

that is properly taken care of. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill which cuts off nutrition assistance to millions of americans, including thousands of rhode islanders. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i yield back. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts america's children. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield for unanimous consent request, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from working families and veterans and seniors and children and the disabled and many others in need. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts' time will be charged. mr. scott: excuse me. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i wonder if you could tell us whether it would be in order to allow the majority to amend the underlying bill that provides for agricultural subsidies to prohibit members of congress who receive financial benefits, payments and taxpayer subsidies from the underlying legislation from actually voting on the legislation from which they directly profit financially, would that be in order for the majority to amend the bill for that purpose?

the speaker pro tempore: the majority manager's in charge of the bill. ms. edwards: further parliamentary inquiry. would it be appropriate to ask the majority to prohibit members who receive taxpayer subsidies from benefiting financially, to prohibit them from voting on the underlying legislation from which they rofit financially? the speaker pro tempore: the chair can't speculate what the majority manager on the rule might do. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield 1.5 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, a great leader on -- of issues dealing with poverty and hunger, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i rise in very strong opposition to this rule and the underlying republican bill.

the bipartisan bill before us is an abomination and shows ust how out of touch, out of control this extreme tea party-controlled congress is. i can't say, though, that i'm surprised. but i'm sad to say this house has reached a very shameful new low. this bill also violates decades of bipartisan support for delicate balance between america's nutrition programs, farm conservation and other priorities. this partisan bill also failed to re-authorize nutrition programs which benefit millions of americans in rural and urban areas across our country. the supplemental nutrition assistance program is our nation's first line of defense against hunger and among the most effective forms of economic stimulus. republicans say they want to decrease poverty and hunger. i hear this all the time in our committees, yet, they do just the opposite. be assured this bill will

increase poverty and hunger. it's a moral disgrace. nobody want this republican bill to move forward. not the 532 companies and organizations from every congressional district who have urged this congress to not break apart the farm bill. not the administration, which issued a veto threat last night. and certainly not the millions of low-income and poor people and working families with children and seniors who continue to struggle from the impact of the great recession. enough is enough. this is un-american, it's a shame and disgrace. it's not only on days we worship that we must remember to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you chairman sessions for yielding. thank you for all the hard work

you do in the rules committee. mr. speaker, i'm a farmer the. i love to farm. it's in my blood and i farmed before i came to congress and i'll farm when i leave. so the fourth generation farmer today, i rise to say we have an historic opportunity to legislate responsibly and reform prudently when it comes to farm policy and food stamp policy. we together can defeat business as usual in washington, d.c. the first time in 40 years a farm policy -- of farm policy, the house has an opportunity tone act landmark reform in ag policy and separate the farm bill. mr. stutzman: because of policy dating back to the carter administration, 80% of the last trillion-dollar farm bill went to food stamps. i don't believe that's right. and as a farmer i can tell you it doesn't serve farmers well. and believe it or not, it doesn't serve the needs of those who need help in this country either. a year ago i began to call on congress to separate the farm bill. our goal was hand been to reform ag and food stamp policy so they can really help the

folks they were intended to help. food policy -- farm policy and food stamp policy should not be mixed. they should stand on their own merits. as congress immorally sinks our country into debt by $17 trillion, taxpayers deserve an honest conversation in order to find solutions. and solutions to help americans who really need help. together we can get this done and pass the first farm-only farm bill in 40 years. together and today we can pass a bill that sends a clear message that the days of deceptively named budget-busting bills are over. by splitting the bill we can give taxpayers an honest look at how washington spends our money. we've made progress by eliminating direct payments, but there's more work ahead. so splitting the farm bill is the next logical step on the path to real reform, for farm policy and genuinely helping those who genuinely need help. i'm proud to vote for this legislation and i thank all of

those who put such hard work into it and as a fourth generation farmer, i'm proud to vote for the first farm-only farm bill in 40 years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. >> parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> is it proper to offer an amendment at this time or at some future time on the underlying bill that would preclude members of congress who receive financial benefits, payments or subsidies from the underlying legislation from voting on this bill from which they directly profit financially? the speaker pro tempore: the amendment to the rule may only be offered if the majority manager yields for such purpose. mr. cicilline: i ask the majority member if he'll yield for such an amendment. mr. sessions: all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only and i will not yield for that purpose. mr. cicilline: will the entleman yield for a question? mr. sessions: i do not know that the gentleman's been yielded that time by his manager. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has reserves.

the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. for time. so the gentleman from massachusetts could yield. to the gentleman from rhode island. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the statement from the club for growth in opposition to this bill and indicating they will score this vote. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much. the only thing that this house will do when it votes today is defeat starving children. it will again put starving children in the abyss of the uncaring attitude of my friends who for the first time in decades are separating the

heartline of the farm bill, the nutrition program, the supplemental nutrition program, the food stamps program. i am glad to stand with the democratic caucus and the congressional black caucus and others to be able to say hunger is silent. there's no one on this floor today, there's no child in that microphone standing over here telling you that their bell something protruding because they have not eaten -- beli is protruding because they have not eaten. there's no one on this floor today who goes to a summer rogram and did not eat because their breakfast program is tied to the school and they're out of school and summer brings about hunger. there's no one that has told you that families have an extra $300 bill in the summertime to feed their children. and for those that do not have it, no one has told you that the lack of protein in a diet leads to disease and decay of teeth and bone. the very children that we say are a priority.

in decades you have never separated the supplemental nutrition program. $20 billion cut, $3 billion, making it $23 billion in cuts. you'll never put that on the floor. you'll slide it through because all the folk want is a piece of a sound bite at home to say they believe in deficit reduction. i believe in life of the children. i believe in growing our children. vote no. vote no. vote no. it is ridiculous what you're doing to our children. absolutely -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is out of order. the gentlelady is still out of order. the gentlelady will be reminded to make her remarks to the floor, not to other members of the body and members will be reminded to utilize the time allowed to them. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the gentleman, mr. stutzman, who is a farmer from indiana, 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 farm -- federal policy, but they're one on a bipartisan basis. the ranking member and the chairman of the farm -- of the agriculture committee have worked very closely on this and i believe that what is on the floor today offers an and unity to debate that see if we can pass it. that's what we're trying to do and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is again recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i am proud to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. moore: mr. speaker, apparently it was not enough for the house majority to decimate the food and nutrition title last time we considered the farm bill, a few weeks ago,

with the $20 billion cut. and when they couldn't get the majority of republicans to vote for it, because it just wasn't cut enough, they just eliminated the entire nutrition title. the supplemental nutrition assistance program, emergency food assistance program, the commodities supplemental program. fancy names and acronyms for the programs that feed seniors, young children and the disabled. they stock our food pantries. i can't wrap my mind around the shameful nature of this moment. a moment when we're moving forward with the farm bill and leaving behind 47 million of our nation's hungry. now, it's been asserted, mr. speaker, that the house leadership is not attempting to starve vulnerable families, but merely want to expedite the passage of the all-important agricultural components of the bill, by removing the extraneous nutrition title. since 1965, we've re-authorized our anti-hunger programs alongside our

agricultural-related policies in a marriage. but at this moment the house has filed for divorce, with the primary breadwinner abandoning 2/3 of the family, consisting of children, young babies, the elderly and disabled. is a deadbeat majority's proposal to avoid child support, elderly subsidies and food assistance to the disabled. of $47 million people. what kind of message are we sending with the passage of this bill? we're telling our nation that congress is willing to turn a blind eye and that food is an extraneous conserve of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: we'll reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to yield to the gentlelady from the virgin islands for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. christensen: thank you.

i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. on behalf of the people of the virgin islands, in strong opposition to this farm bill. it hurts children and families in our country. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i want to yield to the gentlelady from florida, mrs. frankel, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this farm bill and rule and underlying bill because it cruelly takes food away from poor children, elderly and the disabled. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts' time will be charged. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in our country. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd -- the speaker pro tempore: unanimous consent is not objected to and the gentleman from massachusetts will be charged. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield to mr. cart riot for a

unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in america and it punishes all of those who rely on the snap program in this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts' time will be charged. the gentleman from texas objects. mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i object. i can't agree to a unanimous consent that this increases hunger in america. it just separates a bill out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is not ecognized. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: an objection to the gentleman from pennsylvania's request was

heard. >> parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize the. >> how much time got charged with the last two unanimous consent requests? they're each one sentence and you were saying they were charged? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> would you explain to the ouse why that is the case? the speaker pro tempore: any request that is accompanied by remarks that is in the nature of the debate is charged. not the unanimous consent request itself, but the remarks that follow the unanimous consent requests are in the nature of a debate. mr. watt: mr. speaker, i object o that ruling. and ask the speaker to reverse t.

the speaker pro tempore: rule pending at the time, there's nothing for the gentleman to object to. mr. watt: i move that the time of the two previous speakers who asked unanimous consent not be charged to the time of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's motion is not in order. there's no motion of such sort appropriate at this moment.

mr. watt: i ask unanimous consent to restore the time to mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: there's an objection to the gentleman's unanimous consent request. mr. sessions: i am not yielding for that purpose. >> regular order! >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. the gentlelady -- >> mr. speaker, i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have. it the motion is -- >> mr. speaker, i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 138, the nays are 265, the motion is not adopted. he house will come to order.

he house will come to order. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici, for a unanimous consent request. ms. bonamici: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it will increase hunger in america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. there is objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield to my good friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to

the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food nutrition away from working families. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? there is objection. the gentleman from massachusetts will state his point of parliamentary inquiry. mr. mcgovern: am i understanding the gentleman's objection correctly? that what is he doing is not even giving members on our side the courtesy of inserting their statement in the record? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state a proper point of parliamentary inquiry. mr. mcgovern: i'm trying to understand what the objection means that the gentleman from texas -- i mean, does that mean that the gentleman from massachusetts' statement that he just made will not appear in the record? the speaker pro tempore: the objection is to the unanimous consent request. the gentleman cannot state a point of parliamentary inquiry. mr. mcgovern: at this point i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. good friend, mrs. lowey, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and

extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor and takes food and nutrition from hardworking families. the speaker pro tempore: there's objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from america and nevada's poor families. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton for a -- norton, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying rule because it

increases hunger and poverty in america. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? there is objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i think it is extremely unfortunate that members on the other side of the aisle are denying members on this side of the aisle the ability to incertificate written materials in the record. in all my years here i've never seen such a serious gesture. mr. gohmert: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i will not yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will not yield. the gentleman from massachusetts researches -- reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. controls the time. govern governor mr. speaker, at this time -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time i'm proud to yield one minute to mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, it's no secret that the republican tea party has a national agenda that's playing out right here in this chamber today. you are attempting to defund food stamps, yes, you are.

and place poor people, which includes children and the elderly and veterans, in a position that none of you would want to be in. when it was time to re-authorize the farm bill, republicans cut $16 billion in food stamps and what happened? the speaker refused to schedule the bill for action, not because the cuts were too deep but because they were not deep enough. so the ag committee made deeper cuts, this time, $20 billion in cuts when the bill was debated. republicans then offered mean-spirited amendments that doomed the bill. now you bring us another bill with no nutrition title at all. we cannot stand by and be silent when republicans take these actions that offend what we are as americans. we can do better than this. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair, not directly to other members of the body. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve? mr. sessions: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield one

minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the relentless focus on the nutrition programs at risk. but remember, this is going to be the costliest farm bill in history. it contains no reform, it concentrates federal cash on the largest, most profitable agra business. it shortchanges coverpbes conservation, guts protection for wetlands, prayeries and forests. it rewards government dependency, not innovation. you have managed to unite the conservation -- the environmental working group, the farm bureau and the club for growth in opposition. congratulations. please reject the rule and the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, very much, mr. speaker.

i believe it's important for us to understand what's in the bill and i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma -- oklahoma, the chairman of the agriculture committee. the chair: the gentlelady from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would have preferred to focus my time in the general debate and that's still my intention. the rules debate historically as we all know this body is more of a partisan discussion. generally less focused on the details of the bill than the intensity of the process or the perspective by which the next action takes place. i understand that. but i would say to my friends and i'll go into greater detail into this in just a little bit, remember what you are about to vote on a rule, tone able us to proceed to a vote entails is consideration of the bill that two years rkups over

in committee, where 100 amendments were considered in both markups, a process by which a bill came to the floor a couple of weeks ago subject to another 100 amendments. tremendous debate, tremendous discussion. but yet a bill that could not quite get the muster of both the left and the right. so, we wound up a little short in the middle. what you're voting on today is the farm bill farm bill. it's what a lot of the folks back home have said for years they want. consider every issue on its own merit. we are about to vote on a rule to make that possible. but in the farm bill farm bill, we received savings in the commodity title in the way of direct payment. that thing that's caused such great angsted. people getting money for not doing anything. that's gone. substantial number of billions of dollars in savings. now, the committee had the spirit to believe that every part of existing phrma policy

should save resources, so we save money in the conservation title. $6 million. we consolidate programs. we refocused. i would say to all my friends on the floor, vote for the rule. give us a chance to proceed to the bill so that we can consider a farm bill farm bill. i can assure all of you that i have given my word to the members of the rules committee, to members on each side of this chamber, that the committee will work hard to achieve a consensus on a nutrition bill. i don't know that -- what kind of a consensus that will be yet. it probably won't satisfy both of my friends on each side of the room to the extreme. but we did in good faith our work. give us a chance to consider the merits of our reform minded bill.

give us a chance, then, to address the nutrition title. let the place work. let the place work. i thank the chairman of the rules committee for yielding some time to me. i ask my colleagues to vote for this. i would tell you, if anything, part of the biggest problem with the bill two weeks ago was, we saved money everywhere. and for some reason no one ever want to go give anything up in this place. mr. session: give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. lucas: sometimes you have to have reform. sometimes you have to do things differently. but at least the ag committee chose to make the reforms across our jurisdiction, to make everybody have a stake in the savings. i know that's contrary to how the place works, but for one time, maybe, this session, or this day, or this year, or this decade let's try the old way.

let's try and look at the issue. let's try to be fair and equitable to everyone. let's do the legislative work to get ultimately to where we need to be. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from taxpayers for common sense against this bill. i'd like to also insert in the record a letter from over 500 farm groups, conservation groups that oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i also point out to my colleagues the c.b.o. estimates this bill as written will add $1.3 trillion to the deficit in 2014. at this point i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: this is a shameful day. the house republican leadership has decided again to abandon all efforts to come to a bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. they have launched an attack on the working poor, veterans, children, and seniors who rely

on the nutrition program in a desperate attempt to win political points with their conservative base. after an embarrassing, chaotic defeat of their last proposal, they decide to make a bad situation worse. this proposal strips out the entire nutrition title, putting families and children at risk of going hungry. givemade a clear choice to subsidies to corporations at the expense of the hungry and poor. today house republicans are telling hungry children, food banks who he meet the need of their communities. and low-income citizens, their needs don't matter. for 180,000 rhode islanders who benefit from this nutrition program, they are extraneous. this is disgraceful. it's immoral. and contrary to our values as a nation. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this shameful proposal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from orking families. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman -- mr. sessions: the gentleman from texas objected. the speaker pro tempore: there is objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welsh. mr. walsh: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule, underlying bill because it takes food nutrition from working families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? here is objection. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas

continues to reserve. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. i have no additional speakers except myself when i close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'm the final speaker on our side. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this is about our values. this is about what we stand for. the constant attacks by some of my republican friends -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcgovern: the constant attacks by many on the other side of the aisle on snap, poor people, vulnerable is just plain wrong. quite frankly it's offensive. three weeks ago this farm bill failed in this house because the republicans cannot govern. you are in control. 62 of your members, including five committee chairs, voted no. to suggest that somehow democrats should carry this bill

is ludicrous. let me make one thing clear, we are not going to vote for a bill that sticks it to poor people. and that's what this bill does. the bill that you had on the loor that took two million people off of snap was unacceptable and we could not vote for that. there are 50 million people in this country who are hungry. 17 million are children. millions of people who are on snap work for a living. they go to work every day, but they earn so little they still qualify for this benefit. these are our neighbors. these are our brothers. these are our sisters. please do not turn your backs on them. please do not turn your backs on these people. we are a better country than that. please don't be socalous because that's what this is about. -- so callous because that's what this is about. we have no idea what was promised to get votes on this current bill right now. we have no idea how much of a cut in the snap program or

whether you will sunset it because none of us know what was decided in the republican conference. but when you cut people, poor, when you deny them the ben fifth food which should be a right in this country, that is callous. that is cruel. we should be about helping people not hurting people. have a heart. where's your conscience? what makes this country great, what makes america great is we have had a tradition for caring for the least among us. that's why we are so angry over here, because all of a sudden it seems like we are turning our backs on the poor. there used to be a bipartisan consensus when it came to making sure that the hungry in this country get enough to eat. there's a long hisry -- history of bipartisanship on this. all of a sudden this has become a partisan issue and the target so you can balance the budget has been placed right on the programs like snap, nutrition programs. programs that feed our senior citizens, provide our children

meals in schools. they have even gone after w.i.c. enough, enough. we can do better. we can have a bipartisan farm bill if you will move over to our side and understand that we have an obligation to take care of the most vulnerable. so vote no on this rule. vote no on the underlying bill. we can do so much better. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address remarks to the chair not other members of the body. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i believe 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 agricultureure committee. as he approached the rules committee -- agriculture

committee. as he approached the rules committee last night he spoke 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 to where we can pass good and advise 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 has -- 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 that 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. i would ask for each and every one of us to please vote yes on this rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time -- i yield back my time and move the previous question on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is yielded back without objection. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. t the -- the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]