attracts drug trafficking. we're talking about stuff that attracts violence. we're talking about things that you would be ashamed to bring a child to. we're talking about things if it were to happen in the well of this chamber, many of us would look away because we would be shocked at the gratuitous violence. to characterize this as a cultural norm we should walk away from is a misrepresentation in my view. it's not persuasive to me. it's wrong. it's wrong if it happens in the 50 states. it's wrong if it happens in the territories. and we ought not be complicit in it. the notion that this is going to drive this activity underground, that's an old argument. we heard that before as it relates to the 50 states. that wasn't persuasive. we know what this activity the house defeated the farm

ill. democrats opposed the bill. the bill fail because 30 republicans voted no. what was their reason, matt. matt: it was a varied reason. you had a dozen moderates, snap cuts, implement work requirements for a lot of adults who are on the food stamp program, the supplemental nutrition assistance program, and then combine that with about -- i don't know -- close to 20 conservatives, maybe about 18 conservatives from the freedom caucus and sort of with a little bit outside the freedom caucus who opposed it on the grounds they really wanted to use this as sort of leverage in negotiation with immigration. right now you have the discharge petition going on right now. frankly, they feel like they don't have much control over the immigration debate and looking for some must-pass

piece of legislation they can hold onto here and try to flex their muscle on that decision with the immigration plan going through. and they sort of saw this as the only last chance before the discharge petition would ripen at the end of june so they want to hang onto this thing and use it as leverage going forward with immigration. host: and the headline of one of your huffingtonpost.com pieces says the key part of paul ryan's welfare reform agenda, there was reporting out that the conservatives in the house had been told the house would indeed take up immigration legislation in early june. was that not enough? matt: not really. this started out this idea that the freedom caucus could get what's called the goodlatte bill, a hard line right immigration bill and they want to get a vote on that. they wanted to pass it for a while. the real impetus, if you use the goodlatte bill, it would eviscerate the discharge

petition. the goodlatte bill is the vehicle for the discharge petition. that turned out to not quite be the case. basically they figured out as long as you have 218 votes, you have 218 votes to amend it. that plan really wasn't going to work out. midway through the week here, freedom caucus changed gears and said, what we really want to do is come up with an immigration plan that 218 republicans or maybe more with democrats that they could all support, they could all come together that maybe trump could support and that's a tall order. they thought they were getting closer here. they actually were working with moderates, jeff denham, one of the authors of the discharge petition. they didn't feel like they were close enough to let go this piece of leverage and vote for the farm bill now when the immigration base is ongoing here. host: back to the democrats' opposition to the farm bill, largely because of those snap provisions, formerly called food stamps. this issue has come up in

previous farm bill debates. why was it a real bone of contention for democrats this time around? matt: well, i think the requirements, they're looking at this and there are some reports and unclear how much money they would be cutting from the snap program but frankly democrats felt there should be no cuts to the snap program. this would be implementing the work requirements, requiring someone to work 20 hours a week, an able-bodied adult work 20 hours a week and training program and the democrats thought this was trying to balance the budget after republicans, you know, increased the deficit here with tax cuts and with the spending of the omnibus. they felt this was sort of balancing the budget on poor people. that was their case here. they just weren't willing to go along with it. i think a lot of the republicans who voted against it, moderate republicans were saying, look, i have a lot of snap recipients in my district and they didn't feel like this was a fair deal to them. host: looking ahead what may be in store to the 213-198 vote, you tweeted the farm bill will

be back. the freedom caucus will have say over immigration if the g.o.p. wants to pass it. the speaker offering a motion to reconsider. how soon will we see on the farm bill? matt: it's guest: only two days, a clause 8 rule. and only a couple of legislative days that would put it on tuesday. you could put it up under another rule and this isn't something that would be so difficult. they will vote when they have the votes. the freedom caucus thinks they can use this as leverage in the immigration debate. if you did it tonight again or monday or tuesday without movement on the immigration issue, i'm not sure you will get a different result. this might drag on for a little bit into the month of