Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman and ranking member.

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

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

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

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

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

Farmers need our agreement. I support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Begin Insert]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge its defeat.

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

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

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

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

[End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source