Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2642, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.

First, let me say that this side of the aisle believes the passage of the farm bill is very, very important. It is important for our agricultural interests, for our farmers. We believe it's very important for those who are relying on nutritional programs and support from us. So we share the view and are strongly in favor of the view of passing a farm bill, number one, I tell my friend.

Secondly, I would tell the gentleman, as he well knows, the farm bill, for the past 2 years, has passed out of the committee with a majority of Democrats, and I think maybe unanimous, but certainly the overwhelming majority of Republicans. It passed out last year as a bipartisan bill. It was not brought to the floor. It was not brought to the floor, as the gentleman recalls, because of the controversies on your side, not our side, of the aisle.

Mr. Peterson, to whom the gentleman referred and the ranking member of the committee, was in support of the farm bill. In fact, he indicated that he thought there would be sufficient Democrats, with Republicans, to pass the farm bill. Very frankly, as the gentleman articulated, you lost 62 votes on your side of the aisle, notwithstanding the fact that you adopted three amendments during the course of consideration of the farm bill that Mr. Peterson advised would undercut his ability and the Democrats' ability to support the bill.

Very frankly, I tell my friend that what has happened, the farm bill was a bipartisan bill supported by a majority of the Democrats in the committee, as the gentleman knows, and by the ranking Democrat, Mr. Peterson. It came to the floor, however, and that bipartisanship was undermined by the amendments that were adopted. I think that was to the knowledge of certainly Mr. Lucas. I know that Mr. Lucas knew that it was undermining it.

We now find ourselves in a position--and I understand what the gentleman has said trying to get to conference--where there was little or no discussion, certainly not with me, not with Leader Pelosi, about how we could move forward in creating a greater bipartisan coalition, while clearly recognizing there was opposition in your party and opposition in my party. So the way this could have passed in a constructive way, in my view, would have been had we reached a bipartisan compromise.

Unfortunately, as is too frequently the case, we have seen where we have gone to, in my perspective, an ultra-partisan resolution to try to pass this bill and presumably pick up a number of the 62; and you'll need a substantial number of the 62 because we don't believe, as you can tell, that this is a process that we can support. But it is unfortunate because the gentleman is correct, and I respect the gentleman's observation, it's important that we pass a farm bill. But for over half a century, we have passed a farm bill in a bipartisan fashion with consideration from the nutrition people in our country to make sure that those who are without food and are hungry would have food.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. The point of order is that, in fact, consistent with your rulings today, that the gentleman's unanimous consent request was not any different, in substance or in length, than the unanimous consent requests that have been made on a number of occasions, and time was not charged. That is inconsistent. It is a subjective judgment, and I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I want to say to my friends, the reason the farm bill lost is because 62 of your people wouldn't support your Chairman Lucas, who pleaded for their support. That's why the farm bill lost. Secondly, it lost because you adopted three amendments that undercut poor people in America. And so your response has been to abandon them altogether so you could get those votes back. Isn't that a shame.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source