the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223. the nays are 195. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. speaker, pursuant to h.r. res. 292, i call up the bill h.r. 2642 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2642, a bill to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the de-- of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 295, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield myself as much time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the house will come to order. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2642, the agriculture reform and risk managemenact of 2013.

the bill before us includes 11 of the 12 titles of h.r. 1947, as amended on the house floor last month. to recap, we adopted over 60 amendments in an open process. this bill gives taxpayers nearly $20 billion in savings and mandatory federal spending. it's the most significant reduction to farm policy in history. and further improves agricultural programs so that producers have a true safety net that is triggered only when they suffer significant losses. the bill represents or consolidates more -- repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by usda, including direct payments to farmers. the bill also repeals outdated and unworkable permanent law, and replaces it with cost-effective and market oriented provisions of the title 1 going forward. this provides certainty to farmers and ranchers and eliminates the threat of

government quotas and government price support levels based on 1938 and 1949 agricultural practices and economic conditions. this bill includes multiple regulatory relief provisions, making it the largest regulatory relief bill to be voted on this year. this process began four years ago when then chairman peterson led us into the countryside to have eight field hearings across the nation. we followed up with three more sets of hearings, including audits of every single policy under the jurisdiction of the house agriculture committee. the result is the legislation that reduces the federal footprint and makes commonsense reforms to policy. thatno secret, my friends, my preference would have been to pass h.r. 1947, the full farm bill, last month. but that didn't happen. and we are here today with another opportunity.

today's a step towards getting a five-year farm bill on the books this year. we can't lose sight of our responsibility to do this work. in closing, mr. speaker, i would say this. if you're serious about reducing billions of dollars in mandatory government spending, then vote for the bill. if you're serious about reducing of the federalst government, vote for the bill. if you're serious about providing regulatory relief to farmers and small businesses all america, then vote for the bill. if you're serious about making sure every american has a safe, affordable, reliable food supply, then vote for the bill. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues in supporting this farm bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill and i'm sorry that i have to do that because i started as the chairman said having hearings on this bill april 21 of 2010. i do it for two reasons. first and foremost i believe the strategic -- strategy of splitting the farm bill is a mistake. it jeopardizes the chances of it ever becoming law, and i think repealing permanent law all but ensures we'll never write a farm bill again in this house. i'm not alone in my belief that this is a flawed strategy. last week a broad coalition of 532 agriculture, conservation, rural development, finance forestry, energy, crop insurance groups expressed their opposition to splitting the farm bill and urged house leaders to pass a five-year farm bill. when such a large group of

organizations both with a different if not conflicting priority can come together and agree on something, we should listen to them. doing the exact opposite of what everyone with a stake in this bill urges us to do, in my opinion, does not make sense and is not the way to achieve success. i don't see a clear path forward from here. there is no assurance from the republican leadership that this -- passing this bill will allow us to begin a conference with the senate in a timely manner. in fact, the republican leadership has told agriculture groups to support this bill as a way to go to conference, while also telling republican members fearful of the wrath of conservative groups to opposition that there will be no conference or at least not without first getting concessions from the senate. concessions from the senate will never agree to. there is a very real chance we could end up in a situation like we have with the federal budget.

where the house majority claim they want something, but instead disregard regular order and demand free conditions before appointing conferees, leaving the bill hanging with nothing getting done. so maybe the chairman has received assurances from his leadership that should this bill pass, they are going to let this move forward to conference, and appoint conferees. i have received no assurance to that end. and given the majority's past performance, frankly, i don't have a lot of confidence they are going to move in that direction. so i repeatedly said that if they only woulve us alone, the agriculture committee could put together a good bill with good policy, and we did in the committee. but last month the republican leaders interfered by pushing into the farm bill poison pill amendments, amendments the chairman and i both said could bring the bill down. even if the house passes this bill today, after the

leadership's continued interference, will do many prospects of getting a bill that the president can sign. the other fatal flaw with this bill is the repeal of permanent law from 1938 and 1949. and replacing it by making the commodity tight until this bill permanent. if you want to ensure that congress never considers another farm bill, and farm bill programs as written will remain forever, then vote for this bill. in every farm bill there are some people that like things and some people that don't. the beauty of the 1938 and 1949 laws it forces both groups to work together on a new farm bill. because nobody wants to go back to the old commodity programs, people will get to a point where they don't necessarily like it but everybody can live with it. so if you make the new farm safety net programs a new permanent law, then what you've got, you've got permanent authorization of food stamps.

you got permanent authorization of crop insurance. and then you have permanent authorization of the title 1 programs. so i'll guarantee you what that means is if you're concerned about conservation, fruits and these les, research, other areas, there's never going to be a farm bill if we do this. another reason that i'm concerned about this is the goodlatte amendment to the dairy security act. -- act that was passed on the floor here. i lost that argument, bigtime. but if i'm proven right and in -- in what i said about that and this bill makes permanent law out of that dairy provision, i will guarantee you that this dairy provision that you're going to enact will cost more money than what you're going to save in this bill here that's being considered on the floor today. so, you know, this -- we had a

bipartisan bill out of the committee. we were able to work together. we had 13 of the 21 democrats on the committee support that bill. we were doing fine until we got here to the floor and the leadership screwed this up. and we have the votes to do this bill on a bipartisan basis if we just take out those amendments that were poison bill. i'll give you the names of people who can vote for this bill if you do that. you can call up yourself and ask them. you don't have to rely on me. can you do that. but no, you have to make this on a partisan bill. some people on that side have been trying to make this a partisan bill for four months and finally succeeded. i don't know. i told my caucus that something i never thought would happen, you have now managed to make me a partisan. and that's darn hard thing to do. but you accomplished it. and this is a bad bill.

it should be defeated. we should go back and do a bipartisan bill like we worked in the first place. i reserve the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. the gentlelady from texas. is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, on the basis of such an eloquent statement by our ranking member, my inquiry is, at this point could we not in essence table this bill and begin the process of reconstructing the bill as the ranking member has so eloquently stated, in order to be able to feed america's children and not continue the starvation that this farm bill will create and promote for years to come? the speaker pro tempore: any request for disposition of this bill will have to come from the majority manager. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, if i could continue my parliamentary inquiry. is the bill not flawed as the

ranking member has said for it has left out what has traditionally been a major component of the farm bill, which is the supplemental nutrition program, which deals with feeding hungry americans and hungry children? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has not raised a point of parliamentary inquiry, she's raise add matter discussed in debate. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to the chairman of the farm committee subsubcommittee, mr. conaway for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: as adoption of this farm bill, the bill before us was fully debated by this body and subbed to 100 amendments a couple weeks ago. more than 60 were adopted. this body has had ample opportunity to work its will and now it's time to vote for passage. today those of us who came to town to cut spending, reduce the deficit, reduce the size of government, and make reforms have a real opportunity to walk the walk. this farm bill does all of those things. this bill is going to save

taxpayers $19.3 billion. it's going to repeal or consolidate more than 100 programs at usda. and it's going to repeal the direct program. something that many of my farmers and ranchers back home are -- do not want to give up. the farm bill also does a couple other things. it is being considered separately on its own merits. as many in this body have called for, and it replaces antiquated permanent law so we don't face things like the dairy cliff tend of the year anymore. the bill before us reforms not just the politics of the farm bill, but the process as well. this farm bill has earned our support and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman. i thank the ranking member. i thank the chairman as well. the chairman does not want to do this, with all due respect.

the chairman has said publicly he does not want to do this. the chairman has said publicly he wants to do what historically we have done, gone forth in a bipartisan way, and that's the bill he instructed last year and -- constructed last year and his colleagues did not bring it to the floor. that's the bill he constructed this year and was brought to the floor, but as mr. peterson has so eloquently stated, it was turned from a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill. why, why, why do we always have o do that? the response to its failure because 62 of mr. lucas' party would not join him in the extraordinarily eloquent closing that he gave, not speaking to the motion to recommit but said, look, i

understand that some of you think it's too much and some of you think it's too little but it is democracy. and yet the chairman's party rejected his bill. we rejected it as well because you adopted three amendments that you knew beforehand was going to turn this to a more partisan bill. what did you do? you left this house and said we're going to not compromise, not try to create a broader coalition, but we are going to narrow the coalition. we're going to try to buy off those 6 folks who said they really don't like this bill at all anyway. -- 62 folks who said they really don't like this bill at it's a ay but say republican bill so let's pass it, knowing full well that the senate won't pass it and the president won't sign it. farmers need our agreement. i supported -- may i have one

additional minute, mr. chairman? i don't think i ever opposed a farm bill, not because i represent a vast farm district. i don't. but i understand that food and fiber is critical for my people, for our nation and indeed for much of the world. and so, ladies and gentlemen, flawed eject this process. this process which abrogates the pledge of three days of legislation for consideration. last night published and we're asked to vote on it today. why? because this is a very controversial provision and they didn't want to have the light of day shine too long on this flawed process. let us reject this bill. let us reject a partisan bill. let us speak out for the farm community of america and, yes,

those who need nutritional help, and let us speak for job growth in rural america which the bill that the chairman reported out would have helped. this bill ought to be rejected, and we ought to do our duty and our responsibility in a responsible and effective democratic, bipartisan, cooperative way and i yield back the balance of my time and i congratulate the chairman for what he would want to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, one of my prime subcommittee chairmen, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for recognizing me and for the work that he's done to pull together this bill over these last two years. there's much that i'm hearing on this floor so far in this debate that i do not disagree with. there's much that i do agree with. the numbers are this. 62 no votes on the republican side. 24 no votes -- and 24 yes votes on the democrat side.

i said for weeks we should go to both sides and pull together 218. i appreciate the effort to do that. i appreciate the honor that's been brought to this process by the chairman, mr. lucas, and others that we work with. we're down to this now. we're down to this is our choice for this bill which can provide five years of predictability for agriculture and an uncertain bill that might come before us on nutrition, which i think ends up without what i want which is reform of snap. i'm going to support this bill. i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i'd like to back this train up. f we can't do it -- i am for moving forward. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. r. scott: thank you very much, chairman peterson. ladies and gentlemen of the ouse, what we have here is not

a farm bill. you tell me how in the world we can have a farm bill and separate food and nutrition out from it? the american people don't get that. when you think of farms and you think of agriculture, you mean to tell me it isn't about food? and here we have made this critical, terrible mistake of divorcing, of segregating, of separating the most basic, essential of farm policy which is to produce the food and nutrition for the people of america. is isn't just about food stamps, although we're here because the republican party, y friends -- and i have many over there -- have been hijacked to turn a bipartisan

effort to deal with the complexity, the vulgarity where , their s in this nation primary part of their economy is agriculture, is business. my members on the agriculture committee, we have a broad mandate. we should be the most powerful committee up here. we not only deal with food, we not only deal with agriculture, we deal with fuel, growing our independence.gy we are dealing with the heavy finance of $600 trillion in derivatives, but this makes us look small. and call it a farm bill and it has nothing to with food and is so hypocritical, my friends. you've seen the news reports. the american people have seen the news reports where we have

members who are accepting millions of dollars in subsidies -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: and will be voting against poor people who need the food to eat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i wish to yield to the other mr. scott from georgia, one of the chairman on the house agriculture subcommittee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill. while i know that many people i work with who have a tremendous amount of respect for oppose the way forward here, i rise because it is the only way forward. throughout this entire process, there were many things we agreed on. the agricultural industry needs certainty, our farmers who produce our food and fiber need the ability to plan so they can produce a safe, reliable and affordable food source for our country. i know, i know that many of us who are on the committee would

have preferred that the last bill pass. i, too, would have preferred that it pass. but as a small business owner, i can attest the importance of having the ability to plan. and if we're able to get these titles that we agree to, these 11 titles that we agree to pass into law, then our farmers will have that ability. i rise to ask for your support of this bill. i appreciate being part of the process. the farms and families in this country need the certainty of this agricultural policy, and i ask that you support the bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman from minnesota. ladies and gentlemen, the farm bill usually is one of the most bipartisan things we do around here, but not today. even though many of my colleagues, unlike myself, were not farm kids, i assume they can tell the horse's head from

the horse's rear, but they're totally backwards on this one. last night we received notice that previously an unreleased farm bill was going to be sprung to the floor today. what about regular order? this stunt makes a mockery of chairman lucas and ranking member peterson and the committee's work over the last year and a half. farmers, ranchers and anyone who believes in government transparency must be saying -- shaking their head, there they go again. once again, the majority has chosen to make everything we do around here partisan, and this is one of the least likely partisan persons you're going to talk to. unlike many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, i supported the farm bill two weeks ago when it failed. i supported it because i thought we ought to move the process forward. this moves us backwards, and it removes permanent law and i don't think we'll ever see a farm bill again. i cannot support this bill. i urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i once again turn to the outstanding subcommittee chairman with the jurisdiction over conservation, energy and forestry, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: passage of a farm bill is long overdue. the house agriculture hearing has had dozens of hearings, countless hours preparing for this farm bill. plain and simple, the committee-passed bill, had substantial reforms to agriculture programs. it eliminated 100 programs, reformed outdated, costly and ineffective programs. the committee-passed bill would save taxpayers over $40 billion, would have savings come out of the farm programs. the bill before us today repeals the outdated farm programs we don't need and we can't afford. direct payments, countercyclical payments, the average truck revenue program, the supplemental revenue assistance program all repealed in this bill. we get rid of many costly subsidy programs and replace them with free market model

risk management. for the sake of our nation's farmers and ranchers and also for all citizens who rely on the safest, most affordable and highest food quality, quality food, i rise in support of this legislation and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. wals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized -- mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. walz: i represent a strong agriculture district in the heartland of minnesota. i'm proud ranking member in the house agriculture committee and i'm proud to call the chairman and ranking member my friend. i'm not proud of what we're seeing today. the disrespect shown to this hallowed ground by hatching this abomination in the middle of the night and forcing it here because of extremist elements is the reason that the american people think higher of north korea than they do of this body. and i can tell you, people

listening today, mr. speaker, they're going to say it's more of the same. he said, democrats, republicans, whatever, don't listen to me. listen to these people who said this is wrong. american farm bureau federation, american soybean association, national association of wheat growers, national milk producers, ducks unlimited, pheasants forever, agri bank, isaac, national catholic rural life conference, first farm credit services, advanced biofuels, ag georgia, ag heritage, agriculture council of arkansas, agricultural energy coalition, ag carolina, ag country, ag start, ag texas, alabama dairy produtiesers, alabama farmers cooperative, american agricultural movement, american association of crop inshurners, american bankers association, american coalition for ethanol, american crystal sugar,

american farmland trust. i may need more time. i'm on the a's. american fruit and vegetable processers, american hunting producers, american sugarbeet growers, american agriculture coalition, arizona farm bureau federation, arkansas farmers nion, it goes on and on and on . listen to the public, listen to your constituents. reject the extremism and i'm one of the 24 who put my money where my mouth is and voted for a bipartisan bill. this is wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. benishek: today i rise in support of the farm bill farm bill. like many of my colleagues in this bill, i'm honored to represent a district with deep agricultural heritage. because i'm a doctor by trade, not a farmer, it's important for me to get the know the

farmers in my district over the last three years. as i traveled around the first district, nearly every producer i meet with stresses the importance of passing a long-term farm bill. programs in the farm bill are important to keeping our farmers and businesses with some certainty. i know some will say the bill isn't perfect. some would like more reform, some would like more spending, some would like less. i urge all of you to strongly consider moving 2642 forward. . we have up thing in common. we all need to eat. our country is the breadbasket of the world. let's keep that in mind and remember our farmers who produce our food here today. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill of my ld the remainder time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. this is not a farm bill. this is a leadership designed train wreck.

we had a farm bill. it was bipartisan. it saves money. it provided farmers with more security. it provided conservation and it it's a way forward. but i stead -- what instead we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair where they came on this floor and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately, and regrettably, effectively, a compromise that was reached by republicans and democrats who dealt with tough issues. america needs a farm bill not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: could i inquire how much time myself and the ranking member have remaining in the debate? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma has 22 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 15 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i yield

the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman as well. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the legislation today. i've often told folks back in wisconsin that working in the house of representatives sometimes like living in an alternative universe. the last hour and a half here we have been debating what is not rather than debating what is. maybe we should debate what is. that is what is in this bill. for the first time it eliminates direct payments to rich farmers. that sounds like a good idea. it eliminates about $14 billion. we removed subsidies to people who no longer farm. that sounds like a good idea. for wisconsin, america's dairy land. we fix our dairy polcy. that sounds like a good idea as well. we fix forestry problems and improve timber harvest. we stop the brain drain that's been going on in our national forest. it improves the fruit and venl table production in the midwest. finally, it minimizes reforms

and improves important regulatory problems that have put burdens on producers. these are all the really great things that are in the bill. i think we ought to focus on what's there rather than what is not and worry about that today. worry about what is not tomorrow. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. a mr. schrader: thank you, mr. chairman and speaker. it's with a heavy heart i'm here on the floor today. this should have been a high point. i listened to the good chairman and even the rules committee chairman about this is a way to get the bill to conference. i have heard people say this is the only way to get this bill to conference. well, they have another way. sabotaged. i guess that's the point i would like to this body and the people at home some are listening to you. the most important thing is for us to work together.

that's what i hear back home. they don't know about the details of all this policy. colleagues, how a bill gets to conference is as important as getting it to conference. doing it with one party ramrodding it through, without listening, to half of america, that's just wrong this is an anathema to what america wants to see happen. we are ceding our authority to the senate and to the president. the senate will never take this up. the president said he will veto this bill. why not go back and work together? that was the message of two weeks ago. we got it wrong. that's the legislative process is not pretty. we should have gone back and work together. as you heard democrats want to work with our republican colleagues for a good piece of legislation. i'm proud of the american farm bureau and others who still oppose this bill because we are not working together. this is a travesty and they recognize it.

american agriculture is under siege. the world economy, global competition, it's gotten scary out there. now they are under siege from their own congress. colleagues, that's unacceptable to all of us. we can do better. america deserves better. i ask my colleagues to research and check into their hearts, vote their conscience, search their moral compass. let's work together. defeat this particular bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, my colleague from oklahoma, for his leadership on this issue because, mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this farm bill. you know, mr. speaker, one thing i have learned in my six months here in washington is that the farm bill has not been easy. it's been a three-year saga, but i was proud to help produce a strong, bipartisan farm bill out of committee.

three weeks ago in this very floor we had a farm bill that cut $40 billion, including direct payments, that kept crop insurance as a key risk management tool. it made commonsense reforms to a food stamp program that helps feed those who need a hand up. but unfortunately a majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle and a minority of folks on my side said no. i came here to govern, and this bill includes an amendment i offered to help family farmers by giving agriculture a seat at the table when e.p.a. considers regulation that is affect our producers. today is another opportunity to govern and to get to conference so we could iron out our differences as reasonable people f we fail today, i'm not sure we'll get another chance. and reverting back to 1940's law or getting into a perpetual cycle of one-year extensions is not an option. some of us are blessed to represent districts with amber waves of grain, even if you don't, everyone is impacted by the farm bill. all one needs to do is to go to

the rotunda a few steps away --om here and look up at the a apethosis of washington. this vote is about helping our family farmers. it's been providing certainty to the ag economy so that the men and women employed in agriculture can survive and thrive and our family farmers can continue to feed the world. let's move this process forward today by cutting $20 billion and preserving crop insurance is a vital safety net for the many producers in central illinois and southwestern illinois who produce the food we eat so that our farmers can continue to feed the world. i ask my colleagues for their vote on this bill today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. fudge: thank you so much. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have listened to this debate

over the last actually months since i am a member of the committee of jurisdiction, and i have listened to my friends, my christian friends, my religious friends, talk about their hearts. i want every one of them that goes to the prayer meetings and all of the things that they do here every week to go and see how many times poor is mentioned in the bible, how many times hungry is mentioned in the bible because if we are to say today that feeding hungry children and seniors and veterans and disabled are relegated to being extraneous, we are not who we say we are. it is a sad day for america and this country. when we want to separate farmers from food and the people they feed, we are going down a path of no return. and i urge that everyone who believes that they are a christian to vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i'd like to note to my colleague i have no additional speakers and i reserve the rest of my time to

close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, we are here today as a result of a lack of leadership of the republican majority. instead of passing a bipartisan farm bill like the senate has done, house republicans instead try to ram through a partisan bill that would have attacked our most vulnerable children. i'm talking about poor children, senior citizens, and many who lost their jobs. when that bill failed, instead of reaching out to democrats to craft a bipartisan bill that can easily pass, like every farm bill has for the past 40 years, they have resorted to this desperate tactic. by removing the re-authorization of the food stamp program from the bill, they are doing what they have wanted to do for years, completely gut the

program leaving millions of hungry children without nowhere to turn. their heartless action today on the house floor of the nation's capital will increase poverty and hurt the weakest among us. nearly one in five children suffer from food insecurity. 30 seconds. this bill is and embarrassment and should be voted down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma continues to reserve. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. watt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it injures and makes it impossible for children in my congressional district to be fed. and makes it impossible for poor veterans to be fed. it disconnects the farm policy

from nutrition, which has been play forever and a day in this country, and i cannot upport the bill. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman from minnesota's time will be charged. mr. watt: mr. speaker, i make a point of order that that is not a proper ruling. it did not constitute debate. it was simply a unanimous consent request. i do not believe this is a proper ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair ruled earlier today it is not in order to embellish a unanimous consent request with debate. when such a request extends into debate, the yielding member is charged. is mr. watt: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair of the chair the -- in the opinion of the chair the request of the

gentleman is overruled. mr. watt: i appeal the ruling of the chair. >> mr. speaker. mr. lucas: i move to lay the appeal on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i move to lay the appeal on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. mr. watt: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. watt: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. 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 226. the nays are 189. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and the billeir remarks on h.r. 2642. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 588, an act to provide for donor contribution acknowledgements to be displayed

at the for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i note to my colleague i have one additional one-minute speaker and i'll reserve the rest of my time to myself. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from ok arkansas, one of my subcommittee chairman, mr. crawford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. crawford: i thank chairman lucas for his leadership throughout this trying process. i'm pleased to say we are one step closer to providing our ag producers certainty they need to accomplish their goals. the bill is a product of our extension outreach to farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders throughout the country and reflects the critical input we received from our rural constituents that allowed producers to be heard. the ag committee held more than 40 farm bill hearings in washington and across the countryside. through this process we scrutinized every dollar authorized in the legislation we are offering today. once more the bill is the result of an open process that allowed for consideration of the ideas

of anyone and everyone in the house. ag is the number one industry in my district and the state of arkansas. according to the university of arkansas accounts for over 250,000 direct jobs in my state. mr. speaker, it's more important for everyone to know what's at stake. the legislation may be crafted to address u.s. ag economy, but it's not just important to our rural constituents, it's important to everyone. i have always said if you eat, you're involved in agriculture. and i ask my colleagues to think about that. even if you don't have ag interest or proion inour district, every single one of our constituents depend on it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute. ms.delbeney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with great disappointment today. it's a shame the house has allowed the farm bill to get to this point. we should be voting on the bipartisan bill, the agriculture committee passed and i supported. not this bill.

this bill that's been hydrogened by divisive politics and simply not good enough. it's not good for our farmers because it would have protected washington state dairy farmers and consumers have been stripped out. it's not good enough for the millions of working families, seniors, and children who count on nutrition programs and have been exclude interested this bill. and it's not good enough for this country. our constituents sent us here to work across the aisle to deliver results. this bill is certainly not what they had in mind. while i appreciate the funding for specialty crops which i fought hard for, it's in this bill, this is the wrong way to conduct agricultural policy for the future. our country's farmers and families deserve a farm bill that works for everyone. instead, they have been given this. i'm incredibly disappointed today and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the bill because it violates a decades-old principle that has brought rural people and urban people together to help protect them from the vagaries of life and weather and circumstances. it brought farm producers together. they help meet the food and nutrition needs of hungry people here in this country, and all over the world, one of the best things we have ever done. and this bill violates that fundamental mobile principle of bringing people together for a noble cause, feeding hungry people and encouraging the production of food and nutrition. mr. chairman, members of the committee, please vote this bill down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota.

mr. peterson: could i inquire how much time is remaining? . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma has 18 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. peterson: i now recognize the gentleman from texas for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's been 20-some years learning the process, working my way through the process of the texas legislature. i can tell you this process is worse. it's worse in the sense that so much time and effort went forward by mr. lucas and the ranking member, mr. peterson, to craft a very carefully done bipartisan product. mr. gallego: it came to the floor and people who had no intention of voting for the bill in the first place were suddenly allowed to amend it. what we have today is a product that has jettisoned the nutrition part of that bill. and so when we do that, we jetryson the women and the children and the elderly and the

families who depend on that part of the bill. 98% of the households in the district i represent are elderly or kids who take snap. they are jettisoned entirely in this process. this process isn't supposed to work this way, it's supposed to be bipartisan. it's supposed to be a product that is carefully crafted by the committee chair anti-ranking member working together. it's unfortunate it's come to this and i simply cannot support a bill that jettisons our kids and elderly. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. 90 new ney: as one of members of congress, one of 15 freshmen on the agriculture committee, one of 36 members, bipartisan members who voted this bill out of committee to bring it to the floor, we did

so not because we agreed with everything in it. in fact, many of us disagreed very strongly with things in this bill. we did it because we respected our chairman and our ranking member who worked across the aisle together for years to get a product that would help the country, that would help our farmers, that would help the people i represent in the hudson valley. what we have watched on this floor is the sabotaging and the undoing of careful bipartisan work, and the result once again is paralysis. 500 farm groups are supporting the defeat of this bill. don't tell me it's good for farmers. everyone who cares about food assistance for kids is opposing this bill. don't tell me it's good for food stamps. and your own conservative groups, the most conservative groups are opposing this bill. don't tell me it saves the taxpayers money. we came here to get results. this congress can do better. defeat this bill. bring it back and let's work together to get a good result.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. enyart: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to bad public policy. as a member of the agriculture committee, i state my strong opposition to the leadership's drive to split a comprehensive farm bill. it destroys the bipartisan work of the committee. it destroys the coalition that has worked for our nation for generations. the ag committee did our work. we didn't agree on everything, but we achieved a compromised bill that was brought to the floor. i voted to keep this process moving and to get a bill signed into law. many in ed that so the majority party could not support the bill after the draconian nutrition cuts they insisted upon. in representing southern illinois, i represent the two groups that need comprehensive legislation the most, our

agriculture community and the 100,000 citizens out of 700,000 citizens who live in prompt in southern illinois. this approach puts both groups in jeopardy. i cannot support that. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i urge the house leadership to get serious, to stop playing foolish games with our farm economy and with our working poor. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you for yielding. i'm the ranking member on the ag propeses committee and i'm very proud that the usda was founded by abraham lincoln. this bill essentially destroys agriculture in the united states because we grow food to feed people. and the usda is responsible for both sides of that equation. this bill now just turns it into growers. my growers are there for the purpose of feeding people and now we knock out all the people

that need the food. this is ridiculous. this is not agriculture. it's not farming. this is destruction. this is divide and conquer. when you take away the people that need the food, you take away the purpose of agriculture. the best way to give the food back is to defeat this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i now am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kildee: i'm new here. if there's one thing i learned, this is not what we were sent here to do. a member from the other side during the rule debate asked me if our side understood that nutrition programs were not in this bill. well, absolutely we understand it. the great value of the bipartisan farm bill has been the balance of support for our nation's family farms and the products that their labor produces in providing nutrition for those of us of greatest need. i've heard this is the only way forward time and time again,

i've heard that. says who? i thought we were the congress of the united states. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, now i yield to the gentlelady from lorida, ms. brown, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. brown: thank you. mr. speaker, the bible says to whom much is given much is -- much is required. this is a sad day in the house of representatives. shame on the republicans. shame on the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will be seated.

no, the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will be seated. ms. brown: excuse me. what did i say that was incorrect? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady shall suspend. the gentlelady is not recognized. ms. brown: i was recognized for a minute. are you saying i do not have my minute? ms. edwards: parliamentary inquiry, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will state her point of parliamentary inquiry. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. is it not in order as we heard many times on this floor for a member of the house to simply not mention by name individual members of the house but to mention categories of members? that happens all the time. mr. speaker, is it not in order

when there are members on the other side of the aisle who have said obama, obamacare, that nancy pelosi's a train wreck on the floor of this house and their words have not been taken down and they've not been seated? is it not in order for the gentlelady to have been recognized and be able to speak on this issue merely saying republicans? that could be a lower case republicans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will suspend. there's a current demand the words be taken down pending before the body. the clerk will report the words. the gentlelady from florida ill be seated. >> mr. speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state a parliamentary inquiry.

r. takano: is it in order to -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the words. the chair will make a ruling. the gentleman's request will be in order at that time.

the speaker pro tempore: the demand is withdrawn. the gentlelady from florida may ontinue. the demand is withdrawn. the gentlelady from florida may resume her comments. the gentlelady from florida has 42 seconds remaining. ms. brown: excuse me, mr. speaker. did you rule in my favor? the speaker pro tempore: the demand has been withdrawn by the gentleman from georgia. he's demand a withdrawn that her words be taken down. the gentlelady may resume. ms. brown: you know, mr. speaker, this is a sad day in the house of representatives. would you please turn the mico and please ask the house -- the speaker pro tempore: the

house will come to order. all members take their seats and take their conversations off the house floor. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a sad day in the house of representatives. i want you to know that. this is the people's house, and to separate the farm bill from the elderly, from the children, this is a shame. mitt romney was right. you all do not care about the 47%. hame on you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair, not directly to members on the floor. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. takano, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. wish kano: mr. speaker, i to congratulate my republican colleagues. they really caught us offguard on this one. they have gone above and beyond the hijinks that they pulled to get this farm bill to the floor. and while they were at it, they willfully ignored the nearly 48 million americans who rely on snap and over 500 agriculture groups who say this is bad policy. there is a reasonable center here and i know we can reach a rational compromise if we will stay here and work at it. what's the rush to get out of town? let's stay here and get the job done that the american people sent us here to do. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: could i inquire do i have one minute left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. peterson: i yield the gentlelady from texas one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute.

ms. jackson lee: the house is not in order, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the gentlelady from texas vked. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. i think what we have come to today and i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand the passion, the ripping apart of my literal hearts around a bill that is going to continue to pierce the existence of 46.2 million people living in poverty, almost 10 million families. 3.4% of children living in poverty, 17% of elderly, and 21% of adults because this is about hunger. and hunger is silent. we cannot pass this parm bill today because there is no proof, there is no documentation, there is no written commitment that we

will ever get to the snap program and food stamps will be no more. the supplemental nutrition program will be no more because as i said the only thing we will carry home today will be a bragging rights of a sound bite that i cut the budget. i threw the children of america under the bus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: we should vote no on the farm bill. i will not throw the children under the bus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. from minnesota is recognized. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, for a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to rise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to this bill. this bill makes millionaire farmers richer. it takes from the poor.

makes the poorest americans suffer. this bill promotes hunger in the richest country in the world. we should not be about that. we are a better country. we should demonstrate that every day we are on this floor. but we are -- what we are doing today will go down in history as one of the greatest misgivings and misguided laws in this country. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman's time from minnesota will be charged. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: a point of order that my comments should not be time. rom mr. peterson's

the speaker pro tempore: as the chair ruled earlier today it is not in order to elbellish a unanimous consent request with debate. request extends into debate, the yielding member is charged. in the opinion of the chair, the gentleman from mississippi contained debate. mr. thompson: i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: with great hesitation i move to lay the appeal of the gentleman's actions on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the motion is tabled. mr. thompson: 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 221. the nays are 181. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise for an inquiry of my colleague, the ranking member. does the gentleman need some sufficient time to close? mr. peterson: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, it would be helpful for me if you could yield me two minutes. you may not like what i have to say but -- mr. lucas: in the spirit of comedy, i yield to the ranking member for his use. mr. peterson: i thank the chairman and thank him for his

leadership during this process. america's two largest farm organizations, the american farm bureau and natural farmers union that don't often agree both asked us to oppose this bill. and i ask unanimous consent to submit their letters for the record. the idea of splitting this bill is a brain child of the conservative groups like americans for prosperity and heritage action. ironically now they split the bill, they don't support it. so i ask unanimous consent to submit their letters and statements in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. peterson: you know, i spent four years working on dairy policy, and i lost a vote on the floor here on that dairy policy and that was not an easy thing for me to swallow. and in spite of that i was going to vote for the bill and i did vote for the bill. but i don't get is you guys

over there have people that have put amendments on this bill that were successful in amending this bill and then they vote against it. you know, i don't get how we're going to get a bill done in this place when you got that kind of a situation going on. you know. but i'll say this, we're willing in spite of everything that's happened to try to work this out some how or another. i'm not sure if you got the votes where we're going to end up. but we have stood ready to work with you. i think you know that, mr. chairman. and i believe we have the votes to get this done if we would have taken that amendment out but it didn't happen. so let's finish this up, move ahead and hopefully, you know, i had the first hearing on this when i was first chairman april 21, 2010, and i am sick and tired of working on this bill so let's get this thing over with. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reminded to address his remarks to the chair, not to other members of the body. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i believe i have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has the right to close. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, colleagues, i stand before you again to discuss a farm bill. it's not been that many days ago since we did this very thing. on that particular day, it was my hope that the bill put forth on the floor after 100 amendments, approximately, in committee, after 100 amendments essentially being filed and mostly considered on the floor of the house that we would have a product we could all support. but on that day a sufficient number of my friends from both

sides of the aisle, from different political per expectives, unite -- perspectives, united together to say no, to say no. now, i chair the committee of primary jurisdiction in this. i'm a member of the majority. my good friend was my co-author on the bill. but i take responsibility. it was my chin that got bopped and maybe it needed it. but i take that responsibility. but i'm a practical guy, and i sat down and i had conversations with as many of you as possible and reached out to everyone i could possibly reach out to and i came to the realization that i had to think outside the box because after all, what's the most important responsibility here, to get our work done in a dignified, orderly fashion, to consider the opinions of everyone.

yes, protect the right of the political minority, whoever that may be and whichever session of congress that may be, but still for the majority of the body to decide the actions of this house. yes, on that day the majority of you decided no action was the response. o now i come back asking you gain to consider a bill. 11 of the 12 titles we debated and discussed and rumbled and argued and cheered about two weeks ago. 11 of those titles. yes, some of you saw it in committee. yes, the rest of you saw it on the floor. now, there is one change and that is going from 1938, 1949 permanent law to over to making

whatever the ultimate product of this farm bill process this year is the permanent law. now, let me say to you, think about what the 1938 and 1949 law is all about. franklin roosevelt was president in 1938. harry truman was president in 1949. that's been a long time ago. the principles of the bill include supply and demand, production history limitations, based on parity if 1910 to 1913. wasn't taft president back then? it is not workable language. now, i know many of you said, that's the hammer with which we force things to happen. well, the hammer hasn't worked very well in the last two years, has it? it's time to move past that old paradigm. to craft good agricultural

policy for rural america, for the consumers out there, and make it the permanent law. yes, we can pass the new farm bill in five years if we want, or sooner, but everything will be up to debate, discussion, and voting. what about that title iv in the previous bill that's not in the bill today dealing with attrition? it became quite clear to me not many days ago that that was the most complicated part of the process. it was an area where, while the committee had by majority vote agreed to make very fundamental changes, saving to the tune of $20.5 bhl in mandatory spending, it became quite clear to me that a number of my friends, in all sincerity, felt it was far too draconian and far too extreme. i respect that. but by the same token i had a substantial number of colleagues who said, oh mitigating circumstance goodness, why couldn't you do

more? more. nd i couldn't reconcile those two perspectives in this comp rehinsive -- in this comprehensive bill in this traditional way system of what's the alternative? i ask you today to vote far farm bill -- farm bill, what an amazing concept. all of you who represent the farmers and ranchers, those who raise the food and fiber that get things done in this country, when you talk to them and they say, why didn't we do that all along? t the nutrition, let me give you my personal pledge, the committee will work, in as bipartisan a fashion as we traditionally have, to craft language. my problem is having dealt with his issue already, i can't guarantee what the product will look like coming out of committee or coming across the floor. i can't guarantee that. but, i can assure the you that in the committee it will be a

fair and open process. i can assure you you'll be able to state your will on this floor and hopefully if 218 of us can agree on a nutrition could then the two bills hopefully be wedded, matched, conferenced is the more appropriate phrase to say, with the work of our friends in the senate and we'll ultimately have a product. but i just can't give you the kind of guarantees you need because i have to have 218 of you agree on anything. but i can give you my commitment to work in that direction. now, i know there are some very grave concerns. in if we don't succeed pass agnew trigs title? what if the senate says, that's your fault, united states house? i would remind you that snap's programs are an appropriated entitlement and that means the

issues can be addressed in the appropriations process. and that's occurred before. no one ever went without a benefit that they qualified for. but i would also say to all my friends who care so intensely from every perspective about this bill, that doesn't guarantee you that you will get what you want. any of you. it just means that if we are not able to address nutrition through the regular authorizing process, our friends on the appropriations committee, the ag subcommittee of appropriations in particular, now become the front line discussion. but once again, the house will work its will through the committee process and across the floor. now if you see a common thread here, it is that i have amazing amounts of faith in you. in spite of the challenges that outside groups from all political perspectives present, in spite of the diversity of

opinion within elected leadership on both sides of the aisle, i know you're fond of me because of the way you've been treating me, all of you, lately. but in spite of those actions, my friend, and because you have a responsibility to your constituents as members, and to our fellow citizens in the country as a whole, i respect what you think. so i would simply conclude by saying, and yielding back time, the situation we're in right now, this i believe, very sincerely is the most appropriate way to pass a bill that entails 20% of traditional farm bill spending. i commit to you that we will work on that second piece as hard as as diligently as we can, but please, after all the good faith and discussion, in

the spirit of comity, civility, and the nature of making this place work, i ask you, pass the farm bill farm bill so i can begin the work on the nutrition part of the farm bill next. with that, mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. mr. lucas: i love all of you, i yield back whatever time i have to show it. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expyred. pursuant to house resolution , third reading. the clerk: a bill to continue agriculture and other programs through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms.estity moves to recommit the bill -- ms. esty: i ask unanimous consent to aspence with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. esty: this is the fenal amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted it will simply immediately be amended. the farm bill has traditionally been a risk management tool. it has reduced for dairy prices for dairy famplers in my district. it has reduced -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor. members will take their seat. the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. >> can i reserve a point of order? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's motion is not timely. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: it has reduced risk for all consumers, ensuring a plentiful, wholesome, safe and ffordable food supply with the back stop of snap benefits for though most needy if those who can't afford to here lobbyists. i, too, thought that snap exclusion was so incredibly glaring it had to be a drafting error. after all how can we egg forethe 16 million american children including 34,000 in my district lacking basic food security? unfortunately today, we are breaking that risk management tool into pieces. and as a result, the risk is will for far too many rise. the encreased risk will fall most heavily on consumers. for many children, disabled, and elderly who comprise almost 6% of snap beneficiaries and working families receiving snap benefits, their risk of food

ensecurity will rise. additionally, as more people look for more sources and varieties of food, we are importing record amounts of food from around the world. unfortunately, we are seeing more and more food safety outbreaks that are linked to the enormous variety of foods from sources worldwide. may i have order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentlelady may continue. ms. esty: one needs look no further than the current and ongoing hepatitis a outbreak linked to imported pomegranate seeds. over 140 people have been sickened by this outbreak in eight states including wisconsin, nevada, and california. and we are seeing recently the largest u.s.-owned meat company being bought by a chinese company. with industry ownership moving into the hands of foreign companies, how can we ensure food safety in the united states. as a mom, i know how critically

important food safety is for our children's long-term health. mothers in every one of our districts are watching our actions and hoping that we will help keep their children safe, whether at school or at home. congress must do all it can to ensure that the food being imported is as safe as the food produced in our country by hardworking americans. the federal government has a vital role in ensuring our food supply is safe. the usda's food safety and inspection service recently announced it has reduced the number of on-site audits that it conducts in foreign countries to ensure that their food safety systems meet our standards. these used to be conducted annually, now they've been reduced to only once every three years. at a time when food imports are increasing, fsif is doing less to ensure that exporting countries are keeping food

safe. we have a responsibility to correct this trend and this motion to recommit would do just that. my final amendment would addresses two food safety issues. first it directs the secretary of agriculture to conduct annual on site inspections of the fad safety system of countries that import -- that export meat, poultry, and egg products to the united states. second, it authorizes the secretary of agriculture to programs from other within usda to the food safety and inspection service in order to better respond to food safety emergencies. i wish i could have circulated the final amendment to my colleagues to read and review ahead of time but unfortunately, we received the 600-page bill last night. i urge my colleagues to support increased food safety and support the final amendment to the farm bill. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i

object to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman rise in opposition in mr. lucas: i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: what can i say. we've covered a lot of ground, pumped a lot of adrenaline, focused on a lot of issues. i would simply say to you, today is toward the conclusion and because i'm so very fond of all of you, i simply ask you, reject this motion to recommit, pass the bill, go home to your families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion preponderance of the chair the noes have it. ms. esty: 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 risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause of rule 20, this 15-minute

vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered and approval of the journal, if ordered. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 198, the nays are 226.

the motion is not adopt. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas an nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 216, the nays are 208, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is agreing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor from h.r. 2300. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule of the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i yield to my friend, ma the gentleman reserves the balance of his time leader d the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday the house will meet in pro forma session at 10:00 a.m., no votes are expected. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business, votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. the house will also vote to delay for a year both the employer mandate and the individual mandate under obamacare. as the speaker knows, the administration declared -- and the gentleman knows, the administration declared last week that they would delay the enforcement of the mandate on businesses for a year but not the mandate on working families and individuals. we will respond next week to correct this injustice. in addition, mr. speaker, the house may consider h.r. 5, the student success act, authored by chairman john kline. the bill represents a solid,

commonsense approach to education, to provide our next generation with the education they need to keep america competitive in the world economy. finally, the house may consider the department of defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014 drafted by representative bill young to the resources -- for the resources necessary for our troops. and i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information on the schedule. as the gentleman knows, we just i am a farm bill and wondering how soon he might expect to move to go to conference on that bill and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, the chairman, speaker and other members of leadership are in discussions about how to expedite an agreement on the farm bill. certainly it is our intention as well, mr. speaker, to act with dispatch to bring to the

floor a bill dealing with the snap program. that portion of what was traditionally the farm bill we intend to be bringing to the floor at some time in the near future. it is our intention to do so. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. glad to hear that we're going to go to conference as soon as possible so that we can consider that important piece of legislation. obviously as the gentleman knows there's substantial differences between the house and the senate and the sooner e get that bill done and whole , i think the better we'll be. you mentioned the defense appropriation bill is coming to the floor. does the gentleman expect that to be coming to the floor with an open rule? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd respond to the gentleman, as he knows, this congress has, as the last, been a congress as committed to the open process of any in recent history.

i would say to the speaker, continues to insist that -- i would say that the speaker continues to insist that we strive for that open process, to allow fors as much debate and exchange of ideas as possible to benefit for the american people as well as the outcome of legislation. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. was that a yes? mr. cantor: i would tell the gentleman again, mr. speaker, that the rules committee, as the gentleman knows when he was majority ition of leader, knows that the rules committee will determine the structure of debate and i would remind the gentleman that the discourse and debate on this floor has been a lot more open than in years past and would remind him of that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the good news is i don't have time to discuss that today. but perhaps at some time we will. immigration. obviously the senate, as the gentleman so well knows, has

passed a major piece of legislation. passed it 68-32. that bill, is i believe, now with us. can the gentleman tell us when we might be expecting immigration length sla -- egislation on the floor? mr. cantor: i'd say to the gentleman, it is not correct to say that we have that bill. there was a tax, i believe, that was added to the bill. so we do not have that. and i would say to the gentleman, though, as he knows, our conference members met yesterday to discuss the path forward, as far as immigration reform is concerned. i would say, to characterize the agreement on our side, we all believe we need to fix a broken system of immigration. and we need to rebuild the trust of the american people and the operation of government in terms of securing our borders and enforcing the law. at the same time balancing that

with the tradition and history of our country as one that is built on immigrants. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i'm pleased to hear that. of course former president george bush said, as the gentleman knows, just a few days ago that we have a problem , the laws covering the immigration system aren't working. the system is broken and he urged us to pass a bill, chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, has said the same thing as i think the gentleman just said. we are very hopeful that we will bring a comprehensive, which we believe is absolutely essential, immigration bill to the floor. and to realization so we can fix a broken system and, yes, and give a pathway to citizenship for those who meet the criteria that we would set forth. but i thank the gentleman for his comments. and if he would like to respond further, i will yield. if not, i'll yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my ime.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on 2013., july 15, the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. horsford of nevada for today and mr. swike earth of arizona for today after -- schweikert of arizona for today after 10:30 a.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. today, despite all of the diatribe, all of the allegations, so many of which bill passed. is had things in the farm bill i was not crazy about. but what an extraordinary day for this reason.

over the last 40, 50 years, have s of the other party increasingly made the united states a welfare state where more and more american people are dependent upon this government for their livelihood. having been at a harvard orientation course, i was shocked to have a dean there with the charts that showed hat since welfare began, and assistance to single moms for each check, actually, for each child that any woman could have out of wed lock, they would get a check from the government. now, it was well intentioned, back in the 1960's. there were deadbeat dads that were not helping with their obligation to help their children. and so the government, people

here in congress, thought, wow, why don't we help these poor single moms by giving them a check for each child they have out of wedlock. and at that time we were around 6%, 7% of children being born to single-parent homes. and after 40 years, actually, after 30 years, as economists will tell you, you will get more of what you pay for. now past re to date 40%, moving toward 50% of children born in america to a single home, single-mom home. because we got what we paid for. now, it doesn't matter how well intentioned the program was. what i saw happening in the 1990's as a judge was single moms coming before me for welfare fraud and the stories were usually the same. that they presented to me.

that so often were bored with high school and someone said, hey, you can just have a baby and the government will send you a check. and then you can live and you don't have to work, you don't have to finish high school. and those well-intentioned members of congress back in the 1960's ended up in effect luring smart, young women away rom finishing high school into having a child out of wedlock and away from reaching their ull potential. now even for those of us who are christians and believe god created the heaven and earth and god created at one time a garden of eden from which man fell for disobedience, even in that scenario, when the world

, adam was fwiven a job. in a perfect world, where everything was fantastic, efore childbirth pains, before briars, before thistles, before all the things that frustrate farmers, at that time, he had a job. tend the garden. in a perfect world, people will have a job, to reach their god-given potential. and there was a good feeling from doing a good job in what we do. it's one of the things i mess about working in the yard or working out on a form or working with your hands. when you finish, you see you've done something good. when we work here, we try to do the right thing on both sides of the aisle, but we never know , for sometimes decades, hether we did more good than

damage. and i would humbly submit that the program that began to lure young women away from their potential, away from finishing high school, away from time in college, was well intentioned but this government should never be in the business of luring people away from their potential, from luring people into ruts from which they cannot seem to extricate thems. and they come before me for welfare fraud, felony welfare fraud, as a district judge. and normally, the scenario was at they realized after a number of children they couldn't live on that little bit of government subsistence and they would think, well, maybe if i get a job and i don't report it to the federal authorities, maybe i'll finally have enough income that combined with what the government is giving me, then i can get ahead and i can get out

of this hole, this rut. and so when the republicans , one e majority in 1995 of the things they wanted to do was welfare reform. and i was at that harvard orientation seminar and was surprised when they brought out e big poster graph of single mothers' income over the 30 or so years since that program had first begun, single moms' income when adjusted for inflation over that 30-year period was flat lined. all those jeers the average single mom never got ahead. she was flat lined because she was lured into that government program. i'm not sure what the right time was but i think it's

to have the debate about it. certainly, i yield. i yield. you're very welcome. people who hose passed the bills in the 1960's, they had the best of intentions but those poor single moms for flatlined for about 30 years in what they were bringing home. that's tragic. and -- i know both sides of the aisle would want them to do better, to do well, to every year do a little better. i know that feeling is on both sides of the aisle. but we disagree with how you get there. but what really shocked me to say in ve got

some cases broke my heart, is to hear friends talk about how republicans wanted to take food out of the mouths of children. i would never insinuate or say such a motive on the part of friends across the aisle even though i believe that that welfare program back in the 1960's did exactly that. i would never ascribe that motivation to friends across the aisle because i know that's not their heart. they really to want to help. they just went about it the wrong way in the 1960's so in 1995, when newt gingrich led the republican revolution, had the contract with america they put in a requirement for work. if you could work, you had to work. and it pushed people who had been subsisting on welfare, barely getting by, it pushed them into the work force. and this fwraff about nine or

10 years later showed that single moms' income then adjusted for inflation after welfare reform had single moms making more money every year that graph showed their income went up. and surely that is what both sides of the aisle would want. and when we took up this farm bill today, i voted against it for the first vote. previously. but if we are ever going to get down to truly reforming what has become a welfare state that lures far too many people away from the job they could be doing and from the good feeling of actually accomplishing something and the good feeling

of know you're reaching closer, ver closer, to your potential. i was willing to vote for this today because we were going to take the food stamp program out of the agriculture bill and i don't know what the senate is going to do, i can't help what they're going to do. a i know this, today we had first step in the right direction. and i agreed with my leadership if you will separate out the food stamp program, that we can have a separate debate on the food stamp program, and even though i don't agree with a numb of things in the farm bill we voted on, that was such a big deal, a tremendous stride forward, people said the house nor the senate would ever, ever

separate the food stamp program from the ag bill because in either the house or the senate you had to have them tied together to get enough people from both sides or either side to vote for the bill. because you'd never get enough republicans by themselves, you'd never get enough democrats by thems and you'd never get enough together unless you put food stamp program with the farm program. but by doing so, it prevented us from looking closely at the farm -- at the farm program because the food stamp program made 70% to 0% of the budget. and you couldn't look stamp vely at the food program because it was linked with the farm program. there are groups that are doing a great job, i have friends in these groups who say this was a

major mistake today and i would submit very humbly, hide and watch. this was a first major step. an my goal, and i hope i hi to see it, and i hope this country is around long enough that we can do it, is to take every form of public assistance, very form of public assistance , and put it into one bill, in one subcommittee of the appropriations committee, and they deal with all welfare. all types of public assistance. and once that happens, we can have major reform. but the reason we have trouble having reform of this ever-growing, ever-bloated

welfare state is because the public assistance programs are und throughout all the committees' budgets, throughout all the appropriations system of if over here in the farm program, you say, wait a minute, we need to reform the food stamp program, they go, oh, you hate children. you want to starve children. you want to starve mothers. or veterans. or military. you must hate all these people. why? because they're willing to say things that are not right to come in here and say. and that's what broke my heart today, other and over, hearing people that surely know i would never want to take food out of the mouths of someone who could not provide for themselves. i don't know any republican who has ever said that or would ever want that.

we want to help people who truly cannot help themselves. my friend across the aisle, mr. mcdermott, the rules, when i made a proposed amendment to separate the food stamp program rom the farm bill, he said, so do you want to completely eliminate the food stamp program? and i pointed out, no. i do not. of course that didn't stop the mainstream press or the left , g blogs from spouting lies they're accustomed to that. and god bless them, they have the freedom to do that and should be able to do that without this administration grabbing up all their phone records. but it's -- it was not true and i pointed out, mr. mcdermott it wasn't true, i don't want to end it. i want to separate it out and

one day i want to have all the public assistance in one committee where we can see all the ones that are redundant. those that duplicate services already provided. hose where the most waste, fraud, and abuse is taking place because the thing we ow, we're over $50,000 for every child of debt before they ever even have a chance to start making a living. and we have done that and it is immoral what we have done. to future generations. loading them up with debt. just because we can't get to the bottom of waste, fraud, and abuse, get to the bottom of what help this is country more than huferts it. today re will be a price to pay someday for our negligence. but it's not too late. we can still fix it. but a start happened today.

this was a big deal, to separate the food stamp program out so we can look at it. and a good example of what i'm talking about, how these different types of assistance have spread out through so many different budgets. it was pointed out by my good friend dan webster of florida, first republican speaker of the house, as i understand it, down in florida. was reluctant to run, did run, was elected here. he decided to get to the bottom, just one little tiny aspect, of this federal bloated bureaucracy. how many federal programs are there that are responsible for getting people to appointments? far, he says, he's found 87 programs responsible for getting people to appointments. and most of them are in the same cities, and most of them

vans, the same size, same kind of vans, and on average when they do take somebody, they'll maybe average three people per trip. well, when you take up one committee's budget or one appropriation and you were to take one of those 87 programs and say, you know what, let's combine this with these other programs, then we will hear as we've heard today, oh, you hate children or you want to take food from people's mouths. if it's all 87 programs in one bill, then we can come before this body and say, no, we love children. we want to help this country. in fact, we will do more good for children of the future than what you proposed because you're loading them up with debt while we lavish it on our generation and going to make

future generations pay for lavishing on ourselves. that is just wrong. but if you combine them all into one bill, we can say, no, we care every bit as deeply and perhaps more than you do but we don't need 87 programs. we don't need all the duplication. let's eliminate the redundancy. let's get down to what we really need as a federal government because this administration was certainly shocked. they talked about all the horrors of cutting the budget with the sequestration. well the sequestration made too many cuts in defense, some were appropriate. but it did some in the wrong places. as i told my leadership two years ago, this month, you never put your security on the table. you can make cuts but you never

gamble your national security or your home. and my leadership did by putting defense on the table those as promised that sequestration cuts would never happen and i was assured if that bill were passed they would happen and it would be a disastrous mistake. and we and we would be blamed by the president. sometimes it's not fun being right. but here today, we did something good. we started a step toward that goal one day of having the public assistance in one bill, one budget, one committee, where we can get in and analyze without all of the false statements that people want to

make about others wanting to take food from the mouths of children, from my friends saying that i wanted to do that. come on. mr. speaker, that is just wrong. now on our side of the aisle, yes, we will complain about obamacare is going to hurt health care and we are seeing that and we are seeing it play out just as we said would happen. and maybe it wasn't a death panel. call it what you want, but it is a panel under obamacare that will say, no, you are a little too old. hey, you had a good life. yeah, your hip's killing you and before obamacare, you would have gotten a new hip but now you don't get a new hip. yes, you could get a new knee and might have 25 good years with it, but we're the government and we say you have

had a good knee for long enough and you aren't going to get a new knee. when a woman asked about a pacemaker that mur mother gotten, will you consider the quality of life in deciding who gets a pacemaker and who does not since my mother has lived pacemaker.s with a president obama said maybe we are better off telling your mother take a pain pill. and that means die without your pacemaker. that's what obamacare is going to do. but i would never ever ascribe to anyone of my friends across the aisle the intention to want people to die -- they my want to tell me that, but not with the public they are charged with protecting. i don't think they mean to do that. i think they're motivated to do

the right thing, but it's being done in the wrong ways and people are being hurt, and that's the way we look at it. today, dozens and dozens of friends across the aisle try to villify republicans saying we want to take food out of the mouths of children and going to destroy poor people that can't provide for themselves and this is what we want to do. most of those things were said in ways that it would not done any good to have words taken down because they would ascribe it to republicans or to a big group because you could say it violated the rule of a specific person who had a specific evil motive. but it was nonetheless just as hurtful. that's apparently the difference. one side is willing to accuse

the other of wanting to push grandma off the cliff and let her die bouncing down a cliff and the other side, we think you are going to cause grandma to die early, but we know you don't mean to do that. but we know obamacare will do that. that she te middler ad tweeted that if we had lost the revolution, everyone would have had universal health care and i have three daughters and a wife and god bless her, for 35 years. four women in my immediate family. sometimes, children do things to break your heart. sometimes they bless you beyond anything you could imagine. but if we had england's health

are, what i think she didn't understand is, they have a 19% to 20% lower survival rate from breast cancer than we have in the united states, because our health care was that much better and you got treatment that much quicker and you didn't have to wait until you felt a lump. there were groups that could help you. but in england, you had to get on a list in everything you did. when you think about one in five women with breast cancer, if we had england's health care, dying, i can't imagine anyone would want england's health care if it means we are going to lose 20% of the women who have breast cancer in this country. one of my constituents came from england and said her mother died

of breast cancer because she lived in england and was on list tests to to get the cancer and he had when she went on a list, took too long to get surgery, get treatment and she said her mother died because she lived in england. she said i'm in america, i'm a secretary here and i don't have much money but i'm alive today because when i was found to have cancer, i didn't have to go on a list. i was able to get treatment when i needed it, whether i could afford it or not. those who yes or no for the obamacare days where we look like england's health care, where we have 20% less survival rate with women we love with all our hearts, like the four women , you got five women,

which one do you want to die so we can have health care like england. the disagreement here on the floor was not about anybody wanting children to not have the food they need, but we have seen the results of welfare reform. and the results of welfare reform in the republican revolution of 1995 resulted in single moms having more income after inflation than ever before under the giveaway programs of the great society. so in that scenario, who cares more? those who push through the great society that lure women into a rut, so many they couldn't get out of or those who pushed through a bill that forced them their meeting

potential. i spoke at the oldest college in ler, texas, my home, a few months, texas college. it's a great college. nd it changed my opinion about colleges that began as all one race. now they are all different races but it's basically an african-american college still today. and the people in charge are questions and they care deeply. nd i spoke to a combined sociology class at texas college and i laid out this case. as one single told me, you got to clean these programs up. i am now after so many years later coming to college to try to better myself and i wish it had been otherwise, but you need to make people work. you need to make people finish

high school. and if they can, have them do some college. you do not give people a check. and she said too many people even spend it on drugs instead of their kids. she said, you need to reform the system so that i don't waste years trying to get to college. and others chimed in and said similar things. and these were people who understand the system better than i do. , t as a judge, as a citizen i've seen it from different angles. and though we care equally on one way,s of the aisle leads to the end of a nation. and it's the broad path and it's

wide because every nation in the history of the world has gone down that path and come to an unless the ss and lord comes before, we will, too. so my goal, my running for congress, the goal of so many people i know here was to come, try to make a difference to prolong what some called the little experiment in democracy. to prolong what ben franklin said, it's a republic madam if you can keep it. that's our goal. that's what we hope to do. and i really believe today, we made a step in that direction toward reforming the system and starting down the path of eliminating the duplication. and i realize it may not all happen in this farm bill, by the

time we agree with the senate, but then we can expose those in the senate that did not do the right thing. and we can expose those in the house that didn't and it will end up giving us a majority of those who will do the right thing, not that everybody doesn't have the right motivation, but you need to do the right thing even under pressure and enemies to do something else. i think we did a good thing today. and i yield to my friend from nebraska. >> if you would allow me for three minutes of commentary. mr. gohmert: i yield such time to mr. fortenberry may use. take all you need. mr. fortenberry: i wanted to add to mr. gohmert's conversation and add a few words on the syrian conflict. in my office this week, i read a accounts about father --

franciscan priest who was shot dead by rebels and killed in a christian village. he did not deserve the death he was dealt. mr. speaker, i just firmly believe that the united states congress cannot allow american taxpayers could become complicit in this killing and the other brutality that is occurring there in syria. what began as a very hopeful exercise of the syrian people petitioning their government for redress of grievances and their basic rights has spun into a civil war with terrorists and rebels fighting this brutal assad regime, but the blood bath in syria has spared no one. the regime and many of its opponents have killed wantonly without discretion murdering civilians and combatants, not men, women and innocent children

have not been spared and no one there is safe. now we have no place of imposing our notions of democracy where we cannot distinguish who stands for what. we cannot become complicit in barbaric attacks on civilians. we have no business shipping weapons that could end up in the hands of those who would raid con vents and murder innocent people. neither america nor syria can possibly be served by this. true to our principles, the united states remains the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of syria with a total of $800 million since this conflict began in the spring of 2011 and that's where our efforts belong. r. speaker, i think father moran that i referenced earlier, that would probably be the outcome he would want to see,

giving people some hope, possibly stopping the shipment of arms into that country. that would be a legacy worthy of his sacrifice. 100,000 persons have died, mr. speaker. no u.s. military engagement in syria. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. mr. gohmert: wonderful point. i know that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are motivated again by doing the right thing, but when you know that you have a tyrant on one side in charge of the country and you know that now, perhaps it would have been different if we had gotten in earlier, but at this point, al qaeda, the most radical islammists, brutal killers, are driving the rebel side. there is no good reason for this country to spend any blood nor

any treasure to get in the middle of that conflict. and i appreciate so much my friend for pointing that out. and it points to the problem in the middle east with regard to the american position. this president had his administration help the rebels in libya when we knew, hey, people were saying it right here . there are al qaeda. we know there are al qaeda supporting the rebels. we aren't sure how extensive it is, so let's get to the bottom of it before you just launch in and eliminate gaddafi, because gaddafi was giving us information on terrorist elements in the world than most anybody except our best friend israel. he was he was being helpful. he had blood on his hands for which he should have paid, you

have to choose between the lesser of two evils. and as secretary gates said at he time, there is absolutely no united states security interest, national security interest, at stake in this libya crisis. in the rebellion. yet this president went head long and when you know as one egyptian paper reported, bragging, they have six muslim brotherhood members that advise this administration and there are a lot more people sympathetic to muslim brotherhood that advise this administration than that, an when you know that is going on, it makes sense, they're going to make stupid decisions. they're fwoning to always, like they did in egypt, say let's rush in and help even though it allows the muslim brotherhood to take over egypt. that's why i heard so many people say, they talked to people from egypt who said, we

don't want the radical islamists in charge. we don't want the muslim brotherhood. we don't want them in charge. we want a moderate muslim government so that we can live in peace and not tyranny like afghanistan did urn the taliban. and now, to the disgrace of this, the greatest nation in the history of the world this administration is about to leave afghanistan which we should have done probably in 2002, but now we're about to leave it in the hands of the taliban. if we had left in 2002, the taliban had been totally destroyed. they were gone. the people that were members were in such disarray they did not have any real presence in afghanistan. why was that? it wasn't because tens of

thousands of american troops went into afghanistan and wiped out the taliban. no, it was because of the heroic sacrifices of those within the tribal groups called the northern alliance at that time. general dustem led those troops and the united states provided less than 500 special ops intelligence people in a hanistan and provided them cover, gave them weapons an they routed the taliban within a matter of three or four months. in the last famous battle work the general leading the northern alliance tribesmen on horseback with weapons, riding uphill into the strong -- the strong area where the taliban bullets, , with

r.p.g.'s flying all around them. kill manage on horseback. but they never stopped and they went up there to the fortress and defeated the taliban. and now this administration says as a result of how forceful those northern alliance were in defeating the taliban, those are war criminals. no, they fought -- they know how to fight the taliban. clearly we don't. because the taliban has come back and i would submit that this administration releasing taliban leaders to go back and be in charge is not a good thing because we had four americans that were killed at the same time this administration was pleading, oh, please, please come talk to us. you don't have to have any preconditions, just talk to us. we look weak because this administration gives every appearance of being weak.

because it is getting terrible advice. and art of the world -- in that part of the world they don't understand turn the other cheek. as christians, individually, individuals of us here that are, you are to turn the other cheek but as a government official, you provide for the monodefense. and you make sure if others do evil to people in this country, or to threaten this country that they are pun herbed. because the government is not given the sword in vain. and people misunderstand that. and think, oh, if we apologize enough for all of the americans , not ade down their lives for some great empire, but for other nations to continue to speak their language, to continue to have their own

identity and to continue to have freedom that was taken away, country has sacrificed for freedom like no one in the history of the world. in the past, there was some selfish -- there were -- sheriffs some selfish, very selfish motivation. our selfish motivation has normally been that we want these people to be freer so we can be friends and freedom will be catching. but as we've seen if you are not educated in how to sustain a democratic republic where you can govern yourself, if you don't understand how to do that, you will lose it. and we watched in turkey which ter ottourk made great cheages to the government, yes, islam is the most widespread religion in turkey but it was a secular government where other

people could also worship. and we see that being removed lit bill little in turkey. and i hear from turkish friends who are frightened of what's happening. and now this government seems, our government, seems to be on the rock side in each of these disputes. we're out there trying to work with the taliban while they're killing americans. shouldn't that at least be one precondition? would you stop killing our american soldiers that are training your farmers, training your government officials, could you stop killing them long enough to have our talk? because what needs to be done is, you kill an american, we're going to wipe out a whole bunch of your folks. because we are about protecting ourselves and i still feel guilty for 1979, being in the united states army, when we were attacked, it was an act of

war against our embassy in tehran, and we looked weak to the world. and it's still used as a recruiting tool. forget abu ghraib, the best recruiting tool is the way we left vietnam. the way we did nothingle to avenge or even to truly get our people out of tehran after that act of war. and i love the leadership of ronald reagan but in 1983, he had a democratic caucus -- congress and poem who worked with him, when i blamed him for withdrawing from bay rut after the attack, that showed weakness. he said the democrats made clear he didn't have a whole lot of choice. but that gave a sign of weakness. u.s.s. cole, we basically did nothing. nobody paid as they should have. and if we're going to protect

this nation, we have to take care of things at home. stop all the waste, fraud, and abuse, so that people who truly need help get it, and those who can work have the opportunity to work. not with some do-nothing government program, but with a real job where you make real money and you accomplish real things because one other thing obamacare is doing is a disaster to our american friends, i've been told by people, look, i used to work full-time at mcdonald's and now because of obamacare they cut me to part-time so now i don't have the benefits i had before and i have to go back and forth between burger king or arby's and mcdonald's because everybody is cutting to part time because of obamacare. regardless of the incentives for passing the bill,

regardless for all the desire people express about giving people better health care, they're having worse lives, it's the slowest recovery, the worst retvry in american history -- worst recovery in american history other than from the great depression and like mor again that will, the secretary of the treasury -- and like morgenthau, the sec retear of they have treasury said back then, we have spent more money than anyone in history trying to end the depression and created nothing but debt. no better off. they were no better off. and it was not until world war ii began and we got drawn into that by pearl harbor being bombed and seeing liberty under attack for our european friends, we got drawn into it and then the government started doing their number one job, provide for the common defense, and lo and behold, we came out of the depression.

the government did the most important thing for it to do, provide freedom, protect americans, so they can grow the economy. so they can be entrepreneurs. when the government does the most important job, provide for the common defense, it ended the great depression. and now we have people in government that think, though they may not have ever been successful in business, that they can tell people who have been and who are how to to run their buzz so much better and it's hurting this economy. oh, not with countries like -- companies like general electric, those who have plenty of crony capitalist help and i would also advise those who don't want to see reform of welfare that i think can only occur when we give all peculiar assistance in one appropriation, in one committee, then we can get real

reform, and we will save so many billions and billions and billions, hey, maybe trillions of dollars over a 10-year period, we'll save so much money that they'll be able to throw it away on many more thousands of solyndras. they can have all kinds of crony capitalism with the money we can save by prviding ensentivs to get back to work. by providing ensentivs to finish high school and to go to college if you need to. but not everyone needs to go to college. you don't have to get a college degree to learn how to weld. i was over in marshall at the tsti facility, they're teaching welders and they're making great money when they leave and it's true of other institutions. that teach those kinds of vocational training. but instead, we now have more

people on food stamps than ever in history. what has happened to this country? when those of us who want to get the country back running by reforming welfare are vilified and accused of wanting to take food out of the mouths of children, how wrong that is. we want more children with more food the same way i've been vilified for saying children need to be taught english. even if they're just newly arrived from mexico, teach them in enge learn. maybe they need some beginner courses to get them there but don't teach them in spanish, help them move into english. why? not because i or people like me hate those his pan exchern it's because we love them and we

know that if you teach them in english, as my friend, commissioner ramirez, former city councilman ramirez said, his parents from mexico said they couldn't speak english at home he said you can be anything in america you want to be but you've twot to speak good enge learn. an it was true. i am thrilled to death that gus' new restaurant in tyler is working out so well but he wasn't allowed to speak spanish at home. and the sky's the limit. for someone born in this country, they can be president of the country instead of being a manual laborer speaking span herbing they can be president of the company. so who cares more about people? those who rail against us who want to reform the entitlements, we're told they are. they were supposed to be a hand up.

not bit to be lured into a rut they could not get out of. that is immoral. and i know for some people, star parker and others, they talk about how they have pulled themselves up, they're an inspiration, but there are too many that did not have the ability to pull themselves up or the wherewithal and shame on us for luring them into a rut they couldn't get out of. it's time to reform that. but i can also ay as the attacks on the christian religion have grown country is in deeper and deeper trouble and will continue to be. the assault and the intolerance upon christianity is incredible.

people came to this country in the early days, founders, columbus when he discovered, he didn't know he was in a new country or a new continent. thought he found a new way to asia yeah, but he claimed the land for his queen and king and his lord savior jesus christ. and he could sail west and get to the east and the spirit comforted him all the way. look at george washington's writing, the father of this country, without whom there would be no country today as we know it. noble, honorable man. faults, yes. and this country didn't really begin to reach its potential until we dealt with the blight of slavery and the horror that it was in america.

tt's not been any kind of bligh in our country until we started killing babies. slavery had to go. and after we did away with slavery and more people were encouraged to be entrepreneurs and we came into the 1900's, we still needed a civil rights movement to set things straight. and christian leaders like martin luther king junior who studied the bible and wrote touching letters from the birmingham jail, they knew christ was their salvation and knew they were supposed to ensure that brothers and sisters treated brothers and sisters as uch. there were vial christians, but

would submit they weren't christians. they didn't understand christian teachings. but it was the church behind the revolutionary movement and it was the church behind the movement. there were christian leaders behind the civil rights movement and now this nation, our government at least seems to be at war with christianity. we can have a little group complain that oh, we didn't feel comfortable in the military because of the prayers that were said or crosses worn or things being said about christianity. we have examples of someone being told you can't give someone a bible when they need one, because you may be prosecuted or thrown out of the military. under the rules, some are trying to push through, you have a dying friend who asks you if

there is a god and under the order, some would have -- you couldn't tell them what you know with all your heart. it's gotten to be a problem. i love ronald reagan's quote in 1984, he said the frustrating thing are those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. the question there is aren't they intolerant of religion? they refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives. the teachings of jesus would allow people to make whatever choices they wish. choose not too believe in god, oose to be an agent thinkist aetheist. choose to be a muslim, a

buddhist. but believe god's will is not for any stumble. they will all come to eternal life. but the war that's been declared as it appears to be the gloves are off against catholicism, all these different religious beliefs, those who believe against birth control, those who have beliefs about marriage what t has been for most of the marriage tory and without men and women, future generations wouldn't exist today and you say i support that traditional marriage and now you are to be drummed out of your job, drummed out of having friends, eliminated from the

public sector. ronald reagan was right. the real intolerance is from those who choose to impose their beliefs, force them on to others. mr. speaker, today, still nonetheless was a good day. we made a big move toward what one day, if we are faithful, allow us to take some of the burden that we were putting on the future generations and the 50,000 or so we hum pped onto the back of children. we made a first step toward the day when we can reform them and start encouraging people to their god-given potential instead of luring. with that, mr. speaker, i yield ack.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until the chamber will vote next week to delay the implementation of the employer and individual

mandates in the healthcare law. live coverage of the house, here on c-span. >> wanted a representative look american life, so i needed business, politics, food, finance, art, and i was interested in this recurring pattern that you see with -- peopleoprah, jay-z that begin in humble characters -- places, who, sort of, reinvent themselves as something new and find themselves a new language and a new idea that is riveting to americans, and through that, they build an empire, and they cannot stop building. it is almost like an imperative as a corporation, you have to keep growing.

sets in,y, decadence and the language becomes a parody of itself, and they no longer seem to be producing something good. gingrich just keeps writing book after book. opera is on the cover of every issue of her magazine. they become the celebrities that we are now familiar with that dominate our imaginations and in no way have him to replace the institutions -- in a way have come to replace the institutions. sunday at 8:00r p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> earlier somebody touched upon the idea that women could not predict their roles in entering into the white house, but i found one political observer who commented that mary started with esther lincoln when he was

ofoor young man and no idea being called to the presidency then of being a cannibal. she woulday out that not let a little thing like human sacrifice in between her and her goal. she did talk about the goal of entering the white house. she was a true political partner. first ladyhear from office -- authors about the role of the first lady and how it has changed. monday at 9:30 p.m. on c-span. >> house speaker john boehner said congress must increase border security before allowing legal status to the immigrant in the country illegally. he also spoke about the house bill passed today.

>> our economy continues to struggle with slow economic growth, high employment, and stagnant wages. this is the new normal under president obama's leadership. republicans have a plan to strengthen our economy, create new jobs and make more life work for americans. jobse talking about our plan, and we continue to focus on jobs, fighting to make college more affordable. we passed a bill to expand energy production and we main -- we remain committed to appealing obamacare. the rising costs are making it harder for small businesses to hire, and frankly, with last week's announcement, it is wide open to fraud and abuse. in short, it is a train wreck. even the administration knows the law is unworkable. the president has delayed the

employment mandate, but not the mandate on individuals or families. i think it is unfair and indefensible. if you are a software company making billions of dollars in profits, you are exempt from obamacare, but if you are a 28- year-old struggling to pay off your student loans, you are not. if you are a big tank or financial company, you do not have to comply with obamacare next year, but if you are a single-parent trying to make ends meet, there is no exemption for you. if you are a government contractor, you do not have to comply, but if you are a family of four in ohio, you do, or you get taxed. is it fair for the president to give american businesses and exemption from the health law mandates without giving the rebate tod --

american citizens in the country question mark hell, no, it is not. the house will vote to repeal the employer mandate and the individual mandate. i believe it is unfair to protect businesses from obamacare, but not individuals and families. on student loans, the senate has twice failed to pass a solution to this problem. republicans have acted to protect students and their families in a bill that is very close to what the president has authored. i understand there is a tentative agreement in the senate on an agreement. i hope that it is real, and i hope they move it soon. finally, yesterday, our members had a good conversation about immigration reform. our members will commit their work to a common step-by-step approach to fixing the problems in our immigration system. i will take your questions.

recall, i would start with the most junior members. they sometimes never had a chance. >> on the farm bill, do you expect or will you agree to bring a conference report back floor thate includes a nutrition title but does not have the support. ands and bots were candy and nuts, every day would be christmas. expectation of cooperation with the other side? >> i do not know, but i do believe these big, comprehensive bills that cause all kind of albums -- -- problems. the american people get suspicious. numbers have not read the bills

-- members have not read the bills. tohink when it comes immigration reform, moving through this in a methodical, step-by-step approach, allows members to read the bills, understand the bills, and, frankly, allows the american people to have greater confidence around what we are doing and that we are doingin ae of. ladies first. [laughter] it doesn't cost anything to be nice. [laughter] why