endangered california condor. since 2003, the national park system has been part of the california condor recovery program to re-establish california condors at the pinnacles national monument. this cooperative endeavor between the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the ventana wild society, in coalition with the condor recovery team have done well on recovery efforts and public education. many come to this region to get an opportunity to see the condor in the wild. this legislation has broad support from our counties of san benito and monterrey as well as the chamber of commerce, visitor bureau as well as counties who are enthusiastically supportive of this legislation. there is no opposition to the bill. . pinnacles is located in coastal

california to attract thousands of visitors each year which provide a vie that the -- vital economic engine for the county. increasing the number of tourists would promote a healthy impact for those in the retail sector and dining and lodging opportunities the new national park designation would strengthen the region's tourism potential. research shows for every $1 invested in our national park, they return $4 to the community in tourism dollars. situated slightly inland from the california coast, pinnacles national monument has not yet realized its full potential to reach locals and tourists. many tourists travel, dine, and stay overnight in areas in the area where they are visiting to

camp, recreate and enjoy the great outdoors. many are not aware of the pinnacles national monument and as a result don't make the short trip inland to see this treasure. by elevating its stature -- its status to national park, more visitors will come to visit it and more will stay near it. i'd like to end with an inspiring quote from ken burns, who directed "the national parks: america's best requested." in a letter of support for this legislation, mr. burns stated, in -- a pinnacles national park would preserve not only a critical record of geologic time, what could be called a grand geologic library, a way to look back at the vast tectonic forces that staped -- shaped and still shape our continent, but also an

environment for condors, flowers and 400 species of bees. it would preserve a place that native americans, early spanish settlers and homesteaders from the east have considered home, offering an important series of perspectives on a larger sweep of american history. with that bit of wisdom, i urge my colleagues to support our borne legislation and i would like to thank jeff denham, congressman for the region, for supporting and co-sponsoring h r. 46 1, the pinnacles national park act. i ask your support and yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> i'd like to inquire if the gentleman has further speakers? mr. faleomavaega: we do not. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. >> i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4631 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3706 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3706, a bill to create the office of the chief financial officer of the virgin islands and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, and the gentleman is a plan will each control 20 minutes. mr. lamb bush: i ask that all members have five sledge lative days to revise and extend those in favor say aye remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamborn: i -- this would create an office of treasury

officer for the virgin islands to create more fiscal certainty and address concerns of overestimating spending. it will allow the islands' voters to have the final say in this office. thank you and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. is a plan: i -- mr. sablan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 3706. delegate christensen is to be end commended for her hard work on behalf of her constituents. today marks the fourth time the house will vote on legislation

she sponsored to provide greater accountability and transparency in the management of her district's finances. this is a good bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i reserve. mr. sablan: i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. christensen: i rise to speak in strong support of h.r. 3706, legislation i introduced to provide for chief financial officer for the government of the virgin islands. i want to begin by thanking chairman hastings and ranking member markey of the natural resources committee forer that support in making it possible for h.r. 3706 to be on the floor today. i also want to thank subcommittee and fisheries, wildlife chairman john fleming

and of course raking member sablan for their support as well. today, as you heard, marks the fourth time in nine year this is house will consider legislation that i have sponsored to provide for a c.f.o. for my congressional district, the u.s. ver gin islands. it has passed in the previous three times. while i have been severely criticized by some for its introduction, there are many who support it. but i continue to believe that having an independent professional third party being responsible for determining the amount of revenue that the local government has available to spend for an enshoing fiscal year would be a positive development for our government and is generally supported by a broad cross section of our electorate. when i first sponsored the first c.f.o. bill in 2003, the territory was technically insolvent and urgent action was necessary to avoid needing a federal bailout and all that that would entail. after studying the experience

of the district of columbia which sought and obtained a political bailout and a loss of political autonomy, i concluded it would have been better for we avoided being taken over by a control board and i crafted my original c.f.o. bill to do that. unlike h.r. 3706, my first financial officer bill did involve a loss of authority for the governor to and the legislature but it was temporary and would have prevented a complete loss of political autonomy. today, while the territory is experiencing challenges, it is not on the verge of fiscal collapse and no longer has a deficit over $1 billion and annual deficits in excess of $100 million. in view of this, would could ask, why the need for the current bill? first of all, h r. 3706 seeks to end the acrimony and

mistrust among the different branches of the virgin islands government and the public at large and obtain the help of a qualified person. this is a process that is used by the district of columbia currently. for its c.f.o. there have been no complaints of the chief executive of d.c. about a loss of sovereignty or a return to colonialism. since last year, when the virgin islands governor announced a pending $135 million deficit in his budget projections for fiscal year 2012, several members of the 29th legislature questioned his numbers and they have continued to do so, pointing to differences in figures between reports done by auditors and figures presented in budget documents. similarly, public sector union members who have been greatly impacted by various austerity

measures also scoffed at the budget projections saying, quote, there had not been enough transparency to truly demonstrate that there really was a financial crisis and that there was no other way to solve it but with layoffs and pay cuts, end of quote. h r. 3706 did not affect in any way the governor or legislature's ability to spend the territory's funds as they see fit. it seeks to end questions on what the exact revenue of the territory is so we can move forward on a sound economic recovery. i'm not under any illusion that this will be a cure-all for all that ails the virgin islands. i am, however, proposing it as a five-year pilot program. if ver gin islanders approve the process, they can vote to make it permanent through a referendum that is provied after four years of the

c.f.o.'s five-year term. each time i have introduced this or one of the earlier versions of the bill, there have been concerns that the united states congress is imposing itself on the governance of the terer to. there are some that would wish this were the case, but i am not one of them, and this bill would not do that. the people of the virgin islands have come to congress on a numb of occasions to abolish the office of lieutenant governor, to limit the number of senators and for other purposes. i don't see this process as being any different, coming from representative of the people of the ver gin islands and representing their interests. moreover, attempts by our local legislature to pass similar legislation have failed and legislative proposals by nonpartisan organizations have never been considered therefore as a representative of the people of the u.s. ver gin islands, it fell to me and i

accept the responsibility. i regret that our governor and i could not see eye to eye on this. the federal government has and will be providing significant funds to the u.s. virgin islands, especially in light of our economic disaster that currently exists. i am sure that having such an office as the one being prooh posed by h.r. 3706 will enhaps our ability to successfully 1/2 gate through this critical time buzz of the added accountability and transparency it provides. i thank you for the time and urge my colleagues to support the adoption of h.r. 3706. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: does my colleague, mr. sablan, have further speakers? mr. sablan:ive no further speakers. i urge the adoption of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i, too, yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3706 as amended? those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative the rules are suspended. mr. lamborn: i object to the votes on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: 3ur sunt to clause 8 of rule 20, and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this measure will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. lamb brn: i move to suspend the rules and pass senate 270. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 270, an act to instruct the secretary of the interior to convey certain lands to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado and another member will each control 20 minutes. mr. lamborn: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. lamborn: this will convey to the city of la pine in the county of deschuttes, oregon. they will be subject to existing rights and address the county and city's need for land. one parcel will be used by the county to accommodate the expansion of its wastewater treatment facilities and the county will use 50 eakers to develop rodeo grounds and allow for the fouch development of ball fields, parks and recreation facilities. a parcel of 10 acres in the center of la pine will continue to be used for the public library and additional open space use. finally the bill requires the county to pay all administrative costs associated with the transfer. i urge support for the bill and reserve the balance many of -- reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the northern

mariana islands. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sablan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sablan: s. 270, sponsored by senator ron wyden, allows for the convey yauns of land to the city of la pine, oregon and the county of deschuttes, oregon. we do not object to this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i yield to the gentleman from oregon, my good friend and colleague, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i thank my colleagues here on the floor today for their support of this legislation, s. 270, the la pine land conveyance act. you know, this legislation was

crafted in the senate by my friend and colleague, senator wyden and worked together on this project and we would move his bill through the senate. the la pine land conveyance act is the result of efforts of local officials who recognized years ago that for oregon's newest city, the city of la pine, to be able to take care of its resident needed a helping happened from the federal government. 78% of deschutes county, the county in which the city of la pine is loathed is managed, owned and controlled by the federal government. they are surrounded by federal land and their own library sits on b.l.m. land. as they became a city and tried to address the issues that brought about their desire to be a city, they realized they needed to be able to expand a little and take care of some of their problems. this will provide the city with 750 acres so it can build a new

wastewear treatment facility which will allow the community to move off its septic systems and on to municipal water and sewer systems. they have a real problem in la pine with a fairly high water table and issues related to septic systems, so this will help solve that. this legislation also transfers 150 acres to the la pine park and recreation district to establish a more permanent home for what's known as the greatest little rodeo in oregon, the la pine rodeo, and also to help them build out one of their other celebrations, one which all americans take advantage of, and that's the 4th of july. why are these two things important? well, among other reasons, it's a job creator, expanding out the rodeo grouppeds will help them grow jobs in this remote, rural community in deschutes county. and transferring the other land will allow them to have a library on their own city ground and take care of the water needs for the community.

i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for support of s. 270. this is a commonsense bill that brings us together and get some work done for the people back home. i return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jabbed. the gentleman from colorado reserves. mr. sablan: we have no further speakers. the gentleman from colorado have any speakers, i will yield back the balance of my time. mr. lamborn: do i understand correctly, he yields the balance of his time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: both sides yield back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 270. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being -- mr. lamborn: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 271. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 271, an act to require the secretary of agriculture to enter into a property conveyance with the city of wallowa, oregon and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn and the gentleman from the northern marry anna islands each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill

under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamborn: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is just over an acre. the city donated this parcel to the forest in 1996 to construct a ranger station and other facilities. the site was used for many decades but now sits vacant. a local nonprofit organization has proposed developing the facilities as an interprettive site. this would allow the forest service to convey the lapped back to the city for such development. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i resevere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. sablan. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. s. 271 transfers approximately

one acre of land from the wallowa national forest to the city of wallowa, oregon. a local nonprofit organization would use the facility for local historical preservation, interpretation and education. we do not object to this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i now yield such time to my friend and colleague from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i thank you for that and thank my colleagues who have brought this legislation forward as well. this, like the prior bill, the partnership between senator wyd emp n and myself to work together to resolve these lapped issues in oregon. in 1936, the city of wallowa donated this parcel of land to the u.s. forest service and we are giving it back to the city. they had a come poupped there for many years and at some point

quit using it for that purpose and the buildings are in horrible disrepair. two of the compound of the site with some of the county officials and took a look at the facilities and they have had water damage inside, one place, the ceiling had caved in and they have this plan. they have this plan to turn this an interprettive site, and turn this, boo a logging town. what is interesting about this, the maxwell project reflects the local community's deep appreciation for the preservation of this unique history and use this facility and restore it to display photographs and really tell the story and bring students in to let them learn about maxville heritage. now the interprettive center

wants to preserve this rich history. this operated until the 1930's and unique in that it included 50 or so african americans and their families and home to the only segregated school in oregon. in the last three years,

i hereby report i have and execive order. of march 15, 1995. executive order 192957, the government found that the actions and policies of the

government of iran threatened the national security, fortune plcy and economy of the united states to deal with that threat, the president in executive order 12597 declared a national emergency and imposed prohibitions on certain transactions with respect to the development of uranium resources. to deal with that threat of executive order of may 6, 1995 imposed comprehensive trade and financial sanctions on iran. the order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency the claired, larry in lifingt the goth of iran's use of revenues from petroleum, petroleum products and petrochemicals for ill list purposes. iran's continued attempts to evade through desiptive practices and the unacceptable risk to the financial system by iran's activities subject to

certain exceptions and conditions, the order authorizes the sec retear of the treasury and the sec retear of state as set forth in the order to impose sanctions on persons as described in the order or as more fully descreened below. section 1 of the order authorizes the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state to impose sanctions on those who conducted certain transactions with the national iranian oil company or nafa -- naftaron exone for the obtaining of pet tro chemical products from iran. section 2 authorizes the sec retear of state, in consultation with the sec retear of the -- secretary of

commerce to impose any of a number of sanctions on a person upon determining that the person knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase or acquisition of petroleum, petroleum products or petrochemical products from iran as a successor entity to a person determined to meet the criterion above. sections 3 and 4 of the order provided that for persons determined to meet any of the criteria specified in section of the order, the hofedse the relevant agent agencies in consultation with the sec retear of state shall implement the sanctions imposed by the secretary of state, the sanctions provided for in sections 3 and 4 of the order include the following actions. the board of directors of the export-import bank shall deny

approval of the issuance of any guarantee, insurance of credit, or participation in an exception of credit in connection with the export of any goods or services to the sanctioned person. the secretary of treasury shall take actions where necessary to prohibit any united states financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling more than $0 million in any 12-month period unless such person is engaged this in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities. section 5 of the order authorizes the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state to block all property and interests in property that are in the united states that come within the united states or that are or come within the possession or control of any united states person, including any foreign

branch of any person upon determining that the person has materially assessed, sponsored or provided financial material or technological support for or goods or services in support of an i.o.c., i.c.o. or central bank of iran for the purchase or acquisition of u.s. bank notes or prerble precious metals by the bnk of iran. i delegated to the secretary of the treasury that the authority, in con summitation with the sec retear of state, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, to employ all powers granted to the president by i.e.e. -- by ieepa as may be necessary to carry out sections 1, 4, and 5 of the order. the order was effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on july 31, 2012. all agencies of the united states government are directed to take all appropriate

measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the order. i am enclosing a coppy of the executive order i have issued. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1rk the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

>> and welcome back. today the public affairs council released a new survey. americans' views on business in an election year to. discuss the results we turn to the group's president. first tell white house the public affairs council is and why you did the survey. guest: well, we're an unusual organization in that most of our member organizations are fortune 500 companies and we're right on k street.

but we're both nonpartisan and nonpolitical. so we don't pick sides we don't lobby. we have a diverse membership of over 600 member organizations. ranging from chevron to the minnesota vikings to the mayo clinic. and i don't have to get them to agree on anything. so what we've done here, you know, is very little research has been done on american attitudes about business in society. if you look at other pools, people have asked, does business have too much influence? the answer is generally yes. and do c.e.o.'s make too much money? and the answer is generally yes. so we wanted to drill down beyond that and get a sense of what americans expect from companies and what they expect from government. host: two major themes of the survey are people's views of business and government during a turbulent economic time. start with the people's views on big business. what did you find? guest: we did the survey for the first time this last year and this is our second one and initially my expectation and a lot of people i know thought

people would not have a great positive attitude toward big business because of what you read in the media and what you see on movies. but this year 67%, 2/3, actually had at least a somewhat favorable view toward big business. last year it was 61% and actually increased. host: and federal government, the other side that have coin. people's views on the federal government. guest: federal government didn't do as well. we're down in the 40% range in terms of public support in general favorable feelings about the federal government and its roll role. now small business does extremely well. this country loves small business and small business got a score of 88% on the favorability scale. host: do people's changing attitudes on any or all of those have something to do with the ongoing presidential campaign? guest: i'm not sure the campaign affected their general favorability, i do think the fact that the economy got a bit better in the last year, i mean, it's certainly not robust. but during really difficult

times i think the public is extremely critical of all major institutions, including the news media. and government. and business. although again small business, i think people tend to be favorable during good times and bad times. host: everybody likes the mom and pop shop. guest: everybody. in the political commercials they don't say, my opponent will hurt big business. it's always that my opponent or the whole keystone pipeline debate, they feature small businesses because that's what resonates with just about all americans of all different political stripes. host: we'll take you through some of the themes of the public affairs council survey. they include attitudes on big business, as we talked about, expectations from big companies and the federal government. options -- opinions on business and politics and lobbying opinion on u.s. economy. regulatory concerns and the trust of industry sectors. if you want to talk about any of these issues, give us a call

on the democratic line at 202-737-0001, republican line, 20 -737-0002, and the independent line, 202-628-0205. we'll go to one of those independents now. agey is from minnesota this morning. angie, thanks for calling in. curt: i was wondering, i did hear the gentleman say that his organization was nonpartisan. however everyone in this country is either a democrat, a republican or an independent. or a green party. and your personal aspirations. so the majority of his company, are they majority independents? i would feel more comfortable if all everyone in his organization were independents, then i'd know i'm getting a

very nonpartisan view. host: if you want to talk about the methodology of this survey and some of her concerns. guest: in terms of your concern about partisanship, it's a valid concern. i think people should be always skeptical when they hear someone talking about any kind of survey for any purpose. if you go to our website, this is not a plug, but just for information, pac.org, you can read our membership directory alphabetically and by industry. 70% of our members are mosy fortune 500 companies. i actually don't know their political beliefs. most business executives would probably tilt toward republican but not necessarily all. a fair number of them are democrats as well. another 15% are nonprofits. i'm not sure their political beliefs. and another 15% are consultsies. we don't ask. and in fact it's in our bylaws that we don't take public policy positions and have no political agenda. it's i think kind of a nice niche to have these days in d.c., to be in the political world but not have to pick sides. host: do you want to talk about

the methodology of the survey? you obviously didn't run the survey yourself. guest: no. we went looking last year for an independent pollster and they're hard to find in washington because most of them work for the republicans or democrats. we were proud to work with princeton survey research which does an awful lot of the major polling for the pew research center. so we worked with princeton survey for the second year in a row. it's a survey of 1,750 adults. both survey done in english and spanish and most importantly, too, we reached people via cell phone, not just landline. there's an awful lot of americans that don't have landline phones anymore. so it's getting tougher and tougher to do these kinds of polls give than. but we decided to do it the right way to get the most accurate information we could. host: we'll show you one of the results from the poll that is out being released just this morning, about 9:00. this is the longstanding negative view of big business. the headline here is, 3/4 of

americans, 76%, say too much power is concentrated in the handses of a few large corporations. only 22% said that the largest companies do not have too much power. and those numbers, as you can see, haven't really budged since 1994. i wonder, was there -- i know you've done this survey for two years, but is there a golden age of people's trust for big business? are we just not seeing it on this timeline? guest: my initial comments, i talked about the good news. but there's some bad news. corporation c.e.o.'s should not break out the champagne just yet and say that people like us after you will all because there's some big negatives. one is three out of four americans have concerns about too much power. and corporations. and this number hasn't changed since at least 1994. which is the last time we could find someone to ask that question. so it's been a public concern for a long time. we also asked, do you think

that companies make too much profit? and 63% said yes. last year 62% said yes. so at the same time that the public is generally surprisingly pretty favorable to big companies, they're concerned about too much corporate influence and too much corporate profit. and we also asked, do you have confidence in big companies to do the right thing? 44% had concern that they can't count on big companies to do the right thing. so it's a mixed bag for companies and there's some deep-seated public concerns about them. host: let's go to charles from the independent line from here in d.c. this morning. thanks for calling in. curt: thank you very much. this is my first -- caller: thank you very much. thank you for take my call. host: you have a question? caller: yes. i want to know what is the attitudes of the drug war, the federal war on drugs, to see how the attitudes are. because the numbers i'm seeing, people are getting a lot more

negative feeling to. it i want to know where it is on a national scale. because the people i talk to, a lot of people are pushing more, at least to decriminalization at least. but i want to know what the national feeling about the drug war is. guest: we didn't look at that question. but it is a subject that you're seeing more and more in the public debate, is about the whole issue of legalization of marijuana and what are federal policies going to be going forward but it's not something we addressed in oursy visa. host: one thing did you address was people's trust and confidence in the federal government to solve problems, correct? guest: that's right. host: what did you a find? guest: we found only about four in 10 of americans found they have trust in confidence that the federal government is going to be able to solve our most pressing national problems one of which could be drug issues, issues of terrorism, issues of the economy in particular. the federal government has lost a lot of trust on this. i think the public also realizes from what they read in the media that the federal budget is very tight.

in anything this next year congress is going to make some deep cuts. so there is not this expectation that government will do more. probably an expectation they'll do less in the future and i think that has people quite concerned. host: you hopefully broke down those numbers of trust and confidence in the federal government by race. the percentage of white respondents who have a lot of trust or some trust in the federal government to solve their problems is much lower than the percentage of black responedents who are hispanic respondents. you can see the results there. guest: that's true. i think that's going to be one of the real big issues that this country's going to be facing in the next several years. people have been less than trustworthy of the federal government for some time. right now we're facing a lot of big challenges, especially economic challenges. and if people can't count on the government to come through, they're going to be looking for new answers. host: let's go out to tennessee. kitty is waiting on the democratic line. you're on with mr. pinkham.

caller: hi. good morning. i want to thank spee span -- c-span first for your increased coverage of state and local governments that i've heard lately. and i think it's a really good thing to be doing. so much of what -- how we live, the laws we live under, and regulations come from our state legislators. and even from our county and city councils and town councils but i wanted to ask, did mr. pinkham ask people's views on state government? i heard it mentioned the federal government. which gets a lot of flack. but i didn't hear anything about the states governments or local governments. thank you. host: we did go -- did ask about state government. in terms of overall favorability, state politicians, first of all, didn't do great. but they did better than federal government.

so i think the more local and the more people can feel in touch what government means to them at that level, generally more favorable they are toward it. plus this country has a history of states' rights and not necessarily support for washington. so they did a bit better but not great. you know, but i think people also realize when we ask the question about, do you have faith in government going forward, it wasn't just the federal government, it was all forms of government because certainly at the state level, certainly today to date budget cuts have been more severe than they have been at the federal level. so a lot of people, especially in the midwest have seen some very major budget cuts and they're feeling them and so there's this growing realization that we may not be able to count on state and local government for as many services as they once provided. host: maverick writes in on twitter, mr. pinkham, people aren't against big business, just them wielding power through money that favors profits over society in general. any part of your survey to

address that? guest: well, i actually wouldn't really disagree with that. i think that people are pragmatic. in fact last year whether we got some of these results that were positive, did i a focus group of my son -- >> house is gaveling back in. still to come, debate on a bill that would limit abortions in the district of columbia for women pregnant more than 20 weeks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] , the district of columbia pain-capable unborn child protection act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to amend title 18 of united states code to protect pain capable unborn children from the district of columbia and for other purposes. mr. franks: i move that the house suspend the rules and suspend the rules -- and pass h.r. 3803 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, a thnd egentleman from michigan will each control 0 minutes. mr. franks spks mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the gruesome late-term abortions of children who can feel pain is the most gruesome idea. this bill protects unborn children who have reached 20 weeks development from being subjected to inhumane, torturous late-term abortions on the basis that the unborn child feels pain by throes this stage of development, if not much earlier. just two dies -- days ago, a federal court upheld arizona's version of this bill.

throughout america's history, the hearts of the american people have always been moved with compassion when they discover a heretofore hid cls of victims. once the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what was being done to them became clear in their minds. america son the -- on the cusp of another such real sigse. -- realization. technology has shown that unborn children clearly do experience pain. the single greatest hurdle to legislation like h.r. 3803 has always been that opponents deny unborn babies feel pain at all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal. this level of deliberate ignorance might have found excuse in earlier eras of human history but the evidence today is extensive and irrefutable.

unborn children have the capacity to experience pain by at least 20 weeks and very likely substantially earlier. we have entered into the committee hearing record a 29-page summary of the dozens of studies worldwide confirms that children feel -- unborn children feel pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization. i would sincerely recommend that all committee members, their staff and member os they have pass review our site to get the current evidence on unborn pain rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier time when scientists believed in spontaneous generation and that the earth was flat. babies are dismembered or they are chemically burned alive by a hyper tronic solution. some late-term abortionists stab a small, pain-capable baby

through the chest to kill the child prior to being removed. most americans think that late-term abortions are rare but in fact there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions annually or more than 325 late-term abortions every tai in america. here in the district of columbia, the designated seat of freedom in america, abortion is completely legal for any reason up until the moment of birth. under the constitution, the congress and the president are the ones clearly responsible for this unthinkable abortion until birth policy. this landmark vote we are about to take will be the first time in history that the united states house of representatives has ever voted on this question of whether to endorse legal i abortion for any reason up until birth and ladies and gentlemen, we will be held accountable. mr. speaker, under the humane slaughter act, farm animals of america have protection from completely unnecessary cruelty

yet unborn children in america have no such protection from the same kind of agonizing pain. in fact, there is no legal standard to provoid that late-term unborn babies, clearly known to be capable of feeling pain, are afforded the most basic human decency of receiving anesthesia before they are torturously killed. if we cannot find the will or courage to protect human babies from being tortured, then what claim on human compassion remains to us? what we are doing to babies is real. it is barbaric in the purist -- purest sense of the world. it has vimized potentially millions of pain-capable babies since the supreme court gave us all abortion on demand on that tragic day in 1963. i would plead with my colleagues to vote for this bill, to begin this end this heart break of painful, late-term abortion in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i macon -- as i may consume. i begin by asking the gentleman from arizona, mr. trent franks, this question -- why was this measure limited only to women in the district of columbia? i yield to him for a response if he chooses to make one. then i will now go on with the statement, the majority of this house, the conservatives, can

think of nothing better to do than to continue to wage a war against women and take our time with these divisive issues. here we face the worst of economic cry sigs since the 1930's. it appeal toss ideology rather than to some science. every pregnancy is unique and different. and unfortunately, some women face difficult and emotionally devastating decisions in the course of their pregnancy that would require them to consider abortion as the health option. we gather here this afternoon to recognize that this

legislation is not needed as -- is opposed by the nation's leading civil rights organizations, including the physicians for reproductive health, for reproductive choice in health, the center for reproductive rights may -- the national abortion federation, the american civil liberties union, and the catholics for choice. with that opening, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative tais to revise and extend their rashes and include extraneous material on h.r. 3803 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. franks: i yield one minute

to the gentlelady from ohio, mrs. schmidt, the chair of the agriculture nutrition subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. schmidt: article 1, section 8, the district clause, gives us authority for this bill. but i want to point out why this bill is so important. one of the things that upsets a great deal of americans, in fact, over 60% of all americans, 0% of women, is when a baby experiences pain. when you ask americans about abortions and a baby feeling pain with an abortion, well over 60% say they to not want that abortion. the kind of abortions that are occurring are occurring up to the point of where a child can come out normally after nine months' gestation. it's called d.n.a. or it is a painful procedure which

requires the dismemberment of the unborn child. we know as early as 20 weeks, maybe as early as eight weeks, an unborn child feels pain. we know it as of 20 weeks, now there's a question of ght weeks. and yet at nine months this very normal child inside of a body is feeling pain. this is why we're going to ask congress to stop this horrific act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would remind the lady that we have jurisdiction over the district of columbia but we do not have the prerogative to produce unconstitutional programs for them like h.r. 3803. and i'm not -- i'll now turn to the former chairman of the constitution committee of the judiciary, jerrold nadler, and i'd recognize him for as much

time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in op -- opposition to the d.c. abortion ban act. this legislation is a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the right of women to make the most fundamental decisions about their lives and their health. it is based on radical ideology, rather than a long-established supreme court precedent, or on sound science, and it is yet another attack on the right to self-government of the americans who live, work and pay taxes in our nation's capital. it is in short yet another example of the republican war on women and of their fundamental hostility to democracy when the voters have the audacity to disagree with republican orthodoxy. why are we here today, playing abortion politics with a bill everyone knows will not pass the senate when millions of americans are out of a job and the republican majority can't find a moment to consider a single one of the president's jobs bills? the constitutional rule is

clear. the government may not tell a woman whether or not she may have an abortion before fetal viability. this bill prohibits abortions much earlier. this bill does not even have an exception to protect a woman's health. another constitutional violation. we don't have to guess how this kind of extreme legislation plays out. we know from states which have enacted similar laws. take the case of dan yell -- danielle deever, a nebraska woman, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. her fetus would likely be born with undeveloped lungs and not be able to survive outside the womb because all the am notic fluid had drained. the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls. during her pregnancy, nebraska enacted a law similar to this bill. as a result, she could not obtain an abortion. despite serious complications and enduring infections she had to continue her pregnancy. in december, 2010, danielle delivered a one pound, 10 ounce

child who survived only 15 minutes outside the womb. the question of fetal pain is a difficult one. but members need to understand that the argument being made by the proponents of this bill, that a 20-week fetus can feel pain, is a fringe one. denied by the bulk of the scientific community. scientists will continue to debate and study but we should not write marginal views into the criminal code. we also need to remember that this bill targets only the district of columbia. which some on the other side of the aisle like to treat like a colony. it is outrageous that we would be considering a bill that members are clearly not willing to apply to their own constituents. mr. speaker, it is time that the republican leadership stop dwrerting attention of this house -- diverting attention of this house from the business of putting people back to work by bringing up one divisive, unconstitutional bill after another. i urge my colleagues to reject this cynical, dangerous, and unconstitutional legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arizona is

recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, dr. harris. mr. rohrabacher: dr. harris is a member of the science committee and an theseologists. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is -- maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you for yielding the time to me. i will tell you, the argument that this is unconstitutional just isn't true. i urge the members on the other side of the aisle who oppose the measure to read the judge's opinion. just having clearly within the -- this is clearly within the purview of the case law. where the gonzalez case says, the government can use its voice and regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.

those on the other side would have you believe no medical advances have been made in pain and the perception of pain since roe v. wade has been issued. but they have. about 15 years ago, a huge discussion about whether preterm infants at 23 to 25, 26 weeks being cared for by the thousands in our neonatal intensive care units perceived pain to the point where pain medicine was reared to be administered to the patients. pain medicine that if it weren't required would be dangerous but the decision has been -- this has been decided. these infants are being treated for pain. the opposition would hold up a report in the "journal of the american medical association," in 2005, that would suggest that until 30 weeks there was no perception of pain. mr. speaker, that's been set nled hospitals around the country where 23 to 25-week fee us ises -- fetuses are being treated. this bill sets that 20-week limit for two reasons.

one is, as the judge says in his findings, everyone concedes that pain receptors are present at 0 weeks throughout the fetus. mr. speaker, god didn't put those there if they weren't there for a reason. it's to perceive pain. second he, the risk to the mother increases exponentially as you get out of gestation. that's clear, that's not ideology, that's science. that's science, clearly understood. mr. speaker, this bill is founded on very basic scientific principles that the fetus has pain receptors throughout their body at 20 weeks and that the risk to the mother increases after 20 weeks. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers sfk mr. speaker, may i repind the previous speaker that women's doctors know a lot more about the

subject matter than members of congress. and now i turn with great pleasure to a member of the house judiciary committee, the honorable ted deutch from florida, and i yield him one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, for a republican house with a record of attacking women's rights, bringing up this bill, under suspension, the disregard -- that disregards the united states constitution is beyond brazen. it is time this my colleagues come clean with the american people and admit these arbitrary limitations on a woman's constitutional right to choose are part of a broader effort, tonight it's the district of columbia. tonight, 20 weeks is the threshold for turning a constitutional right into a crime. what is tomorrow? 10 weeks? 10 days? where does it end? mr. speaker, when they talk about competing rights, they are intent on granting even to

a newly fertilized egg the constitutional rights of american women. they want to put the rights of a zygote ahead of the rights of a woman exercising autonomy over her own body. my colleagues see this bill as limited in scope but their intentions, mr. speaker, are not limited in scope. right now in this country and -- in this congress and across the country, the rights of women are under attack. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman a half minute. mr. deutch: thank you. mr. speaker, right now in this congress and across the country, the rights of american women are under attack. it is sad that we must fight to defend these rights. but fight, mr. speaker, we will. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arizona is reck thesed. mr. franks: could i inquire as to the remaining time?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 12 1/2 minute the gentleman from michigan has 12 1/2 minutes. mr. franks: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from florida, mrs. adams, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. adams: i rise in strong support of h.r. 2803 which prohibits abortions in the district of columbia on pain-capable unborn children. a poll revealed that 63% of respondents favored banning abortions after the point where an unborn child can feel pain. because in the nation's capital, an abortion can be performed at any time for any reason. i was shocked that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refer to this child as a fetus. i'm sure those who are blessed

to experience motherhood will agree with me, when i was carrying my daughter, i always thought of her as my baby, never a fetus. this discussion is centered around everything but the most important thing, what is the baby feels and is capable of feeling at this time. we have the opportunity to do the right thing. let's stop playing word games and pass this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida yields back her time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize carolyn maloney of new york, a senior member of the congress, and i yield to her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and so many others. i rise in opposition to the d.c. abortion act and thank my colleague in new york, jerry nadler, and eleanor holmes norton for their very strong leadership in opposition to this bill.

mr. speaker, the callus indifference that is shown to the lives this health, the well being and constitutional rights of women in this bill simply beggar description. for instance, the bill has no provision whatsoever for women who have been the victims of rape or incest. and there is no exception for a woman's health. this bill would use the awesome power of the state to compel the victim of an -- of a violent assault to bear the child of her attacker and compel a minor child who has been the victim of incest to bear her sibling. how can you even begin to justify the intrusion of federal power into such deeply painful and personal matters. this bill is an assault on decency and common sense. and it adds to the battery of weapons being used by our republican colleagues and their war against women.

a vote for this bill is a vote to show contempt for women's health, women's rights, a doctor's role in health care decisions and the constitution, all in one fell swoop. vote no and stay out of the doctor's office and the private lives of american women. the health and safety of women in d.c. is too important and this is a recurring bad dream. this happens to be the ninth anti-choice vote brought to the floor during this congress. it is another example of the republicans' war against women. i urge a strong no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's from new york yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. members are advised and reminded not to tra version the well when someone is speaking. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx is a member of the rules committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 3803, the d.c. pain-capable unborn child protection act. i fear for the conscience of our nation because the termination of unborn children for any reason is tolerated in some parts of our country throughout pregnancy, even though scientific conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks gestation. that literally means a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will experience pain in the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the most common second trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed. mr. speaker, such procedures are horrific and in terms of pain, like torture to their infant subjects. as a country, we should leave this practice behind. that is why i'm a co-sponsor of this legislation to prohibit elective abortions in d.c. past

20 weeks. i urge my colleagues to stand with me for the most vulnerable among us and vote in favor of h.r. 3803. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to the former chair of the congressional black caucus, barbara lee of oakland, california, and i yield to her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues, so important to the health of women and to the health of -- of our country. i'd like to also take a moment to commend congresswoman norton, the duly-elected representative of the citizens of the district of columbia for her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and fighting back on the onslaught of women in the district of columbia. republicans continue to make

d.c. their launching ground for attacks against women's health as part of the ongoing war on women. h.r. 3803, the so-called, and this is sinister, district of columbia pain-capable unborn child protection act. this is nothing more than a direct challenge to roe v. wade and a vehicle for yet another ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. it's a direct threat to the health of every woman living in the district of columbia. it can't -- it contains no exceptions for health, for rape, or incest. and it demonstrates a very callous disregard for the real-life experiences of women and their families. it is tragic, tragic that the tea party republicans refuse to bring up any bill that would create jobs, but would rather wage war against the women of

the district of columbia. it is offensive, it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. government and politicians should stay out the health care decisions of women, they should stay out of the private lives of women. women's decisions as it relates to their health care should be made by themselves, these decisions should be made with their medical professionals and their clergy or whomever they choose. women should be able to make these decisions, not members of congress, not politicians, not government officials. this is a direct threat, it's callus, it's unconstitution, it's wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, vice chairman of the immigration subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentleman

from arizona for yielding and i point out here, we talk in abstract terms about what is going on. this is a demonstration of dilation, dismemberment and evacuation that's taking place in the district of columbia and across this country. mr. speaker, here's what takes place. there's a dilation of the cervix. we had testimony of doctor lavin tombings, who showed his tools, reaches in and pulls a leg off this little baby and pulls it out, puts it on a plate, reaches in, pulls another leg off, does the same thing. he said this isn't an easy process, it's difficult. you have to pull hard then reach in and grab another piece of the torso and pull that out until you count up all the pieces of the plate and you get down to this little baby's head. where the head -- for the head, there's a special tool to squeeze the head and crush the head and pull it out. who of us could watch such a

procedure, who of us could conduct such a procedure? who of us? doctor lavinto did, hundreds of time in his testimony. but his little girl died and he took two weeks off and came back to work again thinking he was going to commit other abortions and he got halfway through and he said, i looked at that pile of goo on the plate and i realized that's somebody's daughter. this is somebody's daughter. this is somebody's son. this is a little baby. this is a little miracle of life. this is god's image. being torn apart and dismembered and placed on a plate. i'm hearing that it's a constitutional right to do such an abhorrent thing. it's ghastly. it's ghoulish. and it's the worst thing i would think one could put their hand to. if you can't watch it, you sure can't do it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am proud to recognize the delegate

from washington, d.c., an excellent member of this body, eleanor holmes norton. for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for such time as she wishes to consume. ms. norton: i thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee for the hearings they held that exposed this bill for what it does to reproductive choice in our country. unconstitutionally. on two scores. because it targets also the district of columbia and therefore separates us out. we who live in the drk d.c. -- in the district of columbia. in violation of the 14th amendment. treating us differently than women who live just across the river in one part of our country or any part of our country.

mr. speaker,s the first time in our history that a stand-alone bill has come to the floor to deny the residents of the nation's capital the same constitutional rights as other americans. we won't stand for it. . folks helped this bill care nothing about the district of columbia. they have picked on the district to get a phony federal on a bill that targets roe v. wade. in the process they have picked a fight they do not want and cannot win with pro choice america. bills based on pain or principle would not target only one city that has no vote on a bill that involves only the residents of that city. women have pulled the cover from a bill with a d.c. label

because they know an attack on their reproductive health when they see it. republicans have taken the gloves off. no one can any longer doubt that the war on women is on, even when it is by proxy as with this bill. infiltrating the cure to stop planned parenthood from funding breast cancer screening, defunding planned parenthood, taking away contraceptives in insurance policies, all of these battle it's have -- battles have failed. their final battle on the rights to reproductive -- to the reproductive health of american women, abusing their congressional authority and using the women and physicians

of the district of columbia. that final battle must fail as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to -- mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: i thank the gentleman and, mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3803, the district of columbia act of which i am a proud co-sponsor. and sitting here, i want to get a few things straight. i am a woman and i have not declared war on myself. and second of all, this is not a direct challenge to roe v. wade. this is a direct challenge to the cruelty of unborn children. currently the policy in d.c. legally allows abortion for any reason until the moment of birth. mr. speaker, aaron and blake camby, a couple from my home state of alabama, they were

pregnant with their second daughter when erin had complications at 22 weeks. and it at only 25 weeks, in two days their little baby was born on january 8, weighing only one pound, 14 ounces. but every bit a full baby. they spent 2 1/2 months and both she and her parents struggled daily but that tiny baby, that tiny baby is now 6 1/2 months old and thrivingsing. in the district of columbia, faith could have been aborted not only at the point at which she was born, but also any day up to the day of her birth. h.r. 3803 proliberties -- proribt -- prohibits abortions in d.c. after 20 weeks jesttation, a time frame based on scientific evidence that the unborn child can experience pain at least at this stage of development. in june of 2011, alabama became the fifth state to pass a

similar measure by banning physicians from performing abortions after 20 weeks. i applaud my home state of alabama in its admirable fight to protect human life such as faith when she aarrived earlier than expected into this world. i am proud to vote in support h.r. 3803 tonight and i encourage my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from alabama yields back her time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, how much time remains? mr. conyers: the gentleman from michigan has 5 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: and -- the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman from arizona has seven minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. may i inform my colleagues that the planned parenthood

organization will score today's vote as will pro-choice america . now, members, let no one be fooled, no matter what title you want to give the measure that's before us, it is a direct assault against the supreme court's ruling in row vs. wade. -- roe versus wade. and is another attack against women's reproductive rights. that's why there's so many women's organizations that are opposed to it. and have been. the measure imposes an outright ban on abortions before viability, even where a woman's health may be at risk. do we really want to support that kind of legislation? in cases where a woman's life is in dangered, -- is

endangered, it still requires a doctor to focus on the health of the fetus. furthermore, this measure would jeopardize a woman's health, her ability to have children in the future, and in the case of rape and incest, would force her to bear her abuser's child. amazingly the bill even fails to include an exception for young girls who are survivors of rape and incest. when the american people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, as former chairman nadler remarked, this committee play -- again plays politics with women's health. don't support this measure. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr.

chabot. mr. chabot is a senior member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership in this area. mr. speaker, last week i became a grandfather for the first time. seeing that defenseless little child for the first time reminded me just how precious life is. and why we're morally obligated to protect it. h.r. 3803 would do just that. putting an end to a cool practice taking place here in our nation's capitol. the infamous 1973 supreme court decision in roe v. wade relied upon medical knowledge that's now obsolete. recent medical research and testing show it's that -- shows that an unborn child may have the capacity to experience pain starting as early as the 20th week in the womb. in fact, in the 2004 case, dr. sonny errand was asked whether a fetus would feel pain in a common abortion procedure, dielation and extraction, also known as dismemberment abortion. he testified, quote, if the

fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, i would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus and i believe that it will be severe and excruciating pain. we must stop that and that's what this legislation would do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. this legislation is a noxious for -- obnoxious for three reasons. it picks on the district of columbia because we can, because they are defenseless, we wouldn't do this to any state. number two, it's a direct contradiction of roe v. wade which says you cannot ban an abortion before viability and one ignorant judge in arizona, one far-right judge in arizona who says that a ban is not a ban, it's only limitation, as long as there's an exception for the risk of life to the mother, doesn't change the

meaning of the u.s. language or the supreme court. and three, it's obnoxious because it says to a woman whose health, whose future fertility, whose health is threatened, we judge that this -- we judge that your health is less important than that pregnancy. it's not your decision, it's our decision, because we're a bunch of arrogant politicians and you're only a woman who's pregnant and to heck with you. that's why it's obnoxious. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. he's a member of the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. as we know, a to much of the world, america stands for liberty, for freedom. the capital and the white house are recognizable symbols of how american have fought and died for the truth that governments exist to protect our

inalienable rights to life and liberty. but just blocks from here, steps away from the white house, abortionists infringe on the rights of society's most vulnerable. the unborn. while of course we'd like it see an end of all abortions, today's legislation focuses on protecting the unborn at a time when it is a scientific fact that they are able to feel pain , excruciating pain. it is cruel, inhumane and contradictory to this nation's leadership as the defender and protector of individual liberties, to inflict pain knowingly on anyone, let alone a defenseless unborn child. and i ask my colleagues to recognize this fact by supporting this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from arizona has five minutes. mr. conyers: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, when the american people expect us to focus on putting people back to work, we find ourselves again playing politics with women's health. pandering to the most radical interest groups and wasting time on divisive social issues, which to some may be good politics but i would caution my colleagues to remember why we've been sent here. this war against women cannot continue. the middle class is fighting for its life. workers struggling. and yet we're again putting on this show for the extreme

conservatives with an unconstitutional bill that has no chance of becoming law. in fact, for those who are keeping count, this is the second time the majority has brought up a bill restricting access to abortion under a special procedure requiring a 2/3 vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, mr. smith is the chairman of the africa global health and human rights subcommittee, on the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: for three, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you very much. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, pain. we all dread it, avoid it, even fear it. and go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its very terity and duringation -- its severity and

duration. many americans know that abortion methods are vimet and include a dismemberment of a child's fragile body, chemical poisoning and needles to the baby's heart. there is nothing humane, benign or compassionate about abortion. it is violence against children and it hurts women. but the relatively new scientific understanding that unborn children are forced to endure ex tretionating pain, and -- excruciating pain in the performance of later term abortions an perhaps even earlier should shock us. children not only die from abortion, they suffer. this is a wake-up call to all americans. unborn children feel pain. this highly disturbing fact should further inspire us all to seek to protect these weak and vulnerable children. tragically for the defenseless child in the womb, the d.c. council voted in 2004 to eviscerate every legal

protection afforded unborn children, making abortion on demand legal in d.c. right up until the moment of birth. the d.c. pain capability unborn child protection act authored by my distinguished colleague, trent franks, seeks to safeguard at least some of these kids from 20 weeks onward from both pain and death. of note today's vote comes on the yield of yesterday's federal district court decision upholding a similar law in arizona. in that decision, the judge said, by 20 weeks sensery recenters develop all over the child's body and when provided by painful stimuli, such as a needle, the child reacts as measured by increases in the child's stress hormones, heart reyes ate and blood pressure. . mr. speaker, the poster to my left depicts a d&e i abortion, the most commonly procured

method of abortion in later term a dismemberment abortion. it involves using a long steel tool to fwrass and tear off by brute force the arms and the legs of the developing child after which the skull is crushed. testifying at the subcommittee hearing for the -- or the full committee hearing in may, dr. livitano, a former abortionist, who performed many of these, said, once you have grasped something inside, jeeze ton the clamp -- squeeze on the champ and pull hard. he talks about huh the arms, legs, and intestines are all pulled off out. then he said, many times a little face may come out and stare back at you. congratulations you have just self-ly performed a second trimester abortion. this legislation seeks to protect these kids from this

cruelty. mr. conyers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i now yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. schmitt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 0 seconds. mrs. schmidt: i've heard a lot of debate act and forth but my friends, this is not about ending abortion, how i wish it was. this is about ending late-term abortions in the district of columbia because of the cruel way that those babies are terminated the dismemberment and pain caused by those little innocent babies is contrary to what the founders wanted for our nation. that's what this act is about. we have the right and authority because of the constitution to do this, to end this barbaric procedure and that's why we need to pass this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman arizona reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i would like to yield our remaining time to the

distinguished delegate from washington, d.c., eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from district of columbia has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. norton: mr. speaker, almost all abortions in the district of columbia are performed between six and 10 weeks. i was denied by -- my request was denied even to testify on this bill, even though this bill affects only residents of my city. i was told that, and i did not insist, that the democrats had a witness. they had to hear from that witness. christine had an abortion at 22 weeks only after her physician told her she was carrying a fetus with half a brain and if it were born alive it would have constant seizures throughout its life.

this bill would not have allowed her to have an abortion and she would have had to carry that fetus to term. she has now had a healthy baby, she still grieves for the bay be-- baby she could not have. but she would never have deserved the punishment that this bill would have inflicted on her. i ask members of this house to respect the laws and the women and the residents of the district of columbia, let us do what you insist all over the united states be done in your districts. we differ. respect our differences. even as i respect yours. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. she yields back. the gentleman from arizona has a minute and a half. mr. franks: i would yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. franks: mr. speaker, there

was a time in this country, even across the world, when protecting little babies from torture was a noble thing. mr. speaker, i've heard my colleagues today call this effort to protect little babies from torturous pain extremist ideology. i'm going to suggest to you, sir, if they are right, i would envy no one that they might call mainstream. this bill simply says that we intend in the seat of freedom in america, where congress has the ultimate and current responsibility, constitutionally, to legislate, that we protect unborn children that have reached the age where they can feel pain. today, in washington, d.c., a child can be aborted in labor. and that is not who america is. mr. speaker, i would suggest that if we in this body cannot find the courage and the will

to protect these little babies from this kind of torture, then i'm not sure we will ever find the will and courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone in this place. i would suggest to to you that there is the will and courage to do that in this body and i would predict that this body would pass overwhelmingly by joshte vote, we may not meet the suspension rule bus we will pass by an overwhelming number this bill today. it will at least demonstrate to the world that there is a conscience in this place and we stand for the commitment to protect little by bys that have no other people to protect them. this is our job here, to protect the rights of the innocent and by the grace of god we're going to do that. i yield back. the speaker: all time having expired, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3803 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules -- mr. franks: mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in fare of taking a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient numbering are viz -- having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. s. 67 by the yeas and nays. h r. 828 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 3803 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be ducted -- conducted as a five-minute vote.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. -- h. 679 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 679, an act to reduce the number of executive positions subject to senate confirmation. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

ed

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261 yeas. 116 noes. the bill is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 828 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 828, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for federal employment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 corage 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 263 yeas, 114 nays. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3803 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 461, h.r. 3803, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the district of columbia, and

for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 220, 154 nays. 2/3 not being in the affirmtive, the rules are -- two voting present, 2/3 not being in the affirmative, the rules are not suspended and the bill is not passed.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that remove my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 3009. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. without objection. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move hat house -- that the house suspend

the rules and pass h.r. 3796, thed a dam walsh re-altogether ization act of 2012 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3796, a bill to re-authorize certain programs established by the adam walsh child protection and safety act of 2006. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3796 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: so be ordered. the house will be in order. will the members please take your conversations off the floor for the debate of these suspensions. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the adam walsh child protection and safety act was enacted in 2006 to honor the victims of several violent crimes against children. including adam walsh, a 7-year-old boy who was abducted from a store where his mother was shopping in july, 1981, and found murdered just two weeks later. this important legislation is primarily known for its efforts to create a national sex offender registry. the sex offender registration and notification act created a more uniform system of sex offender registries throughout the country by providing minimum standards that each state must meet. in addition, the adam walsh act made the u.s. marshall service in charge of the apprehension of sex offenders. they apprehended over 11,000

fugitive sex offenders in 2010 alone. h.r. 3796, the adam walsh re-authorization of 2012, was introduced by crime subcommittee chairman jim sensenbrenner, and it re-authorizes two of the key programs created by the adam walsh act. it provided funding for the u.s. marshals sex offender apprehension activities and gives grants to states and other jurisdictions to implement the national sex offender registry requirements. these two programs are re-authorized for five years at amounts that reflect the fiscal year 2012 appropriation levels. the original adal walsh act contained over 20 different programs and was scored as approximately $1.5 billion over five years. by contrast h.r. 3796 is targeted, fiscally responsible legislation that only re-authorizes the act's most primary programs at an estimated cost of less than $300 million over the same period. i thank mr. sensenbrenner for

his leadership on this bill and i urge my colleagues to join me in support of 3796 and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia seeks recognition? >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in regard to h.r. 3796, the adam walsh re-authorization bill. mr. scott: to claim the time in opposition although i do not oppose the bill. h.r. 3796 authorizes various grant programs originally established pursuant to the adam walsh child protection and safety act of 2006. while i support re-authorizing these programs i'm concerned about what is missing from h.r. 3796. unfortunately the bill fails to address many of the problems that the states and indian tribes have encountered in i.menting the sex offender registration and notification act known as sorna, which is one of the provisions of the

original adam walsh act. so far only 15 states have been found by the attorney general to be in compliance. years before sorna became law, many states had developed their own sex offender registries and dedicated substantial resources and research to develop effective sex offender management systems. to lure these -- lower these efforts in -- is not only wasteful, but it could adversely affect public safety. i offer 10 amendments in the full committee markup of the bill seeking to provide states and tribes more flexibility to the cost -- to cost effectively manage sex offenders and to more fully comply with sorna. despite the committee's failure to adopt all of these proposed improvements, there are several positive aspects of h.r. 3796 that make changes to the underlying bill which will assist states in this regard. for example, the bill as amended ensures that provisions of the grant funding intended

for distribution to local governments and entities are not penalized for the states a noncompliance with sorna. in the absence of this provision, states that have been unable to comply would soon suffer up to 10% reductions in their grant awards which is particularly harsh in these difficult economic times. h.r. 3796 at least ensures locates that have had control over whether or not a state complies with sorna are not penalized. three other positive aspects to the bill as amended are the following. the bill gives flexibility to put juveniles on law enforcement registry only, not on the public registry. that is juveniles can be only in the law enforcement-only registry but not publicized. we heard testimony that putting juveniles on a public register would be counterproductive. and this bill protects that. the bill authorizes funding under the adam walsh act for

treatment of juvenile sex owe fenders and the bill requires the public safety impact of long-term or lifetime registration or juvenile registrants to be studied. finally it lowers the age after which certain juveniles adjudicated delink wednesdayy with a clean record can apply for removal from the sex offender registry from 25 years down to 15 years. this is an improvement over current law given the research documenting that sex offender treatment reduces recidivism by 90% for juveniles and that long-term public registry adversely affects the rehabilitation that teenage offenders have, for certain reason would have -- excuse me, the long-term public registry adversely affects the rehabilitation of teenage offenders, though for the same reason it would have been best to eliminate the requirement to put juveniles on the registry in the first place. i am fleeced therefore that

h.r. 3796 in re-authorizing the adam walsh act has improved at least in these aspects. i regret that it didn't improve some of the things that weren't addressed in the bill but i think it's important that we pass the bill and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: thank you, mr. speaker. the adam walsh child protection and safety act enacted in 2006 is landmark legislation intended to keep our communities and most importantly our children safe from sex offenders and other dangerous predators. this bipartisan bill strengthens sex offender registry requirements and enforcement, extended federal registry requirements through indian tribes and authorize funding for several programs

intended to address and deter child exploitation. the centerpiece of the adam walsh act is the national sex offender registration and notification act, or sorna. sorna's goal is to create a national sex offender registry to assist law enforcement's efforts to detect and attract offenders. it provides minimum standards for state sex offender registries and created the national sex public website which allows law enforcement officials and the general public to search for sex offenders nationwide from just one website. h.r. 3796, the adam walsh re-authorization act of 2012, re-authorizes two key programs from the original adam walsh act. grants to the states and other jurisdictions to implement the adam walsh sex offender

registry requirements and -- excuse me -- funding for the u.s. marshals to locate and apprehend sex offenders who violate registration requirements. these programs are crucial to efforts to complete and enforce the national network of sex offender registry, particularly in light of the already passed july, 2011, deadline for the states to come into compliance with sorna. h.r. 3796 re-authorizes both these programs and levels -- with the fiscal year 2012 appropriations. the bill also makes changes to the sorn heir sex offender registry requirements in response to feedback from the states. the bill changes the period of time after which juveniles adjudicated delinquent can petition to be removed from the sex offender registry for a ean record from 25 years to 15 years and provides the

juveniles do not need to be included on a publicly viewed sex offender registry. it is sufficient for juveniles to be included on registries that are only viewed by law enforcement entities. the bill, as amended, by the judiciary committee also re-authorizes grant for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders. i believe these provisions strike an appropriate balance between being tough on juveniles who commit serious sex crimes and understanding there can be differences between adult and juvenile offenders. the adam walsh act has already been a public safety success. to date the justice department has deemed 50 jurisdictions substantially compliant with the sorna requirements with two indian tribes meeting this goal in the two weeks since the judiciary committee considered h.r. 3796 in markup. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1950 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from texas. the chair will put the question again. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3796 as amended. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1950, to enact title 54, united states code, national park system, as positive law, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1950, a bill to enact title 54, united states code, national park system, as positive law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from, texas, mr.

smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1950, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: seeing no objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the rules of the house entrust the judiciary committee the responsibilities of revision and codification of the statutes of the united states. this power does not give our committee substantive legislative jurisdiction over all areas of law. it merely confers the authority into an efficient codification system. the nonpartisan office of law revision counsel is responsible for properly codifying public laws nor titles and sections of the united states code. from time to time that office provides the judiciary committee advice as to how to

enact a more user-friender and cohesive statutory system. this spring republican and democratic committee staff worked cooperatively with the office of law revision council to develop h.r. 1950. the bill creates a new title of positive law, title 54, to compile all of the laws that relate to the national park system. codification bills do not make any substantive changes to existing law. before the judiciary committee marked up h.r. 1950, industry, government and interested parties commented on the draft. based on their comments, i offered a manager's amendment in committee to make sure this does not change substantive law. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1950, dating back to the mid 19th century, numerous laws have been enacted

pertaining to the organization and management of the national park system for the national park service. the system is also responsible for carrying out historic sites, buildings and antiquities act, the national historic preservation act and relating to the preservation of sites that illustrate america's history. over the ensuing years, laws specifying the services responsibilities have been codified in various sections of section 15 of united states code, and as laws relating to the national park service were amended, clarifications have become more cumbersome to use. h.r. 1950 simply gathers all of these provisions pertaining to the national park service and restates them in a new positive law title of the united states code. the new title 54 the code replaces and repeals these provisions of the former law. all changes in existing law made by h.r. 1950 are purely technical and they reflect the

understood policy, intent and purpose of congress in the original enactment. these changes include corrections to remove ambiguities, contradictions and other imperfections. we should note this measure was drafted by the office of the law revision council as part of that office's ongoing statutory responsibility to prepare a complete compilation, restatement and revision of the general and pertinent laws of the united states. i commend the office of law revision council for its good work on h.r. 1950 and for its many valuable contributions to our legislative process. mears, accordingly, i urge my colleagues to support the measure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1950 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3120, the student visa reform act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 430, h.r. 3120, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to require accreditation of certain educational institutions for purposes of a nonimmigrant student visa, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from california each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3120, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i first like to thank the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, for introducing this legislation. h.r. 3120 helps prevent student visa fraud by requiring that any college or university that admits foreign students on f visas must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the department of education. accreditation of academic institutions ensures that foreign students in the united states on temporary visas receive the high level education they deserve and expect as opposed to an education from a sham school only interested in the student's money. under the immigration and nationality act, a foreign national can get a student visa to study at a u.s. college or university. those schools must be

officially recognized but that sometimes means there is just a windshield check to see if the building actually exists. foreign students were admitted to the u.s. 1.5 million times on f visas during fiscal year 2010. we must ensure that the colleges and universities they attend are not simply visa mills to provide the students a way to enter the united states. examples of rampant student visa fraud can be found in many recent news reports. h.r. 3120 helps ensure a school's legitimacy for foreign students that want to come to the united states in order to receive an education. it also helps ensure the integrity of our immigration system by reducing the opportunities for visa fraud. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3120, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill, the student visa

reform act. our u.s. student visa program has a long and proud history. for decades it's helped american colleges and universities attract some of the brightest young minds in the world while offering those students the opportunity to study in the world's leading institutions of higher education. the benefits to our country have been great. international students have expanded and enriched the educational experiences for all students at u.s. universities and colleges. and by immersing foreign students in american culture it provides a lasting and favorable understanding of our country that pays dividends in foreign nations for years to come. unfortunately, some institutions had been undermining the laudable mission of this visa program. last year the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement took down two schools in california after they were found to have engaged in widespread visa fraud and exploiltation of

students. among other things, these schools misled students as to their accreditation. they lied about the ability of students to transfer credits to other institutions. commonly known as visa mills, these schools took enormous sums of money from the students but provided questionable academic courses and essentially worthless degrees. to prevent this type of fraud in the future, h.r. 3120 requires that colleges and universities be accredited in order to host foreign students. such accreditation will need to be given by a regional or national accreditation agency recognized by the secretary of education. seminaries and other religious institutions would be exempt from this requirement. this bill follows in the footsteps of legislation enacted in the 111th congress that requires the accreditation of language trading programs before they could host foreign students. . that bill, sponsoreded by

barney frank, and the chairman of the judiciary could, lamar smith, has already helped the department of homeland security crack down on fraud in language training programs. like the frank-smith bim, this accreditcation requirements instituted by this bill will prevent illegitimate institutions from cheating foreign students who legitimately seek a bona fide education in the united states. in addition this requirement will prevent fly-by-night institutions from engaging in student visa fraud to smuggle or traffic persons into the country. finally in committee i worked with the chairman to add a provision that would prevent persons who have committed certain crimes from owning or running an academic institution that seeks to host foreign students. persons would be barred if they had been convicted of human trafficking, transportation for illegal sexual activity, alien smuggling or harboring, or visa fraud under the student visa program. we also added a provision to

give the secretary of homeland security additional flexibility with respect to schools that are playing by the rules and trying to get accreditation that may be running into bureaucratic delays. specifically the secretary has given the ability to weigh the creditization requirements in the cases where educational institution is otherwise in compliance with the law and is taking good faith steps to obtain accreditation. i thank chairman smith for working with me to bring this bill to the floor and for working with me to improve the strength and strengthen the bill in committee. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3120 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having

responded in the affirmative -- mr. smith: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6029. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 443, h.r. 6029, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 6029 currently under consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may dume -- consume. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i thank ranking member john conyers, i.p. subcommittee bob goodlatte, i.p. subcommittee ranking member mel watt, and the other members of the house from both sides of the aisle who joined as original co-sponsors of this commonsense bill. of foreign and economic espionage penalty enhancement act focuses on one goal. to deter and punish criminals who target u.s. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests. in 1975 tangible assets such as real estate and equipment made up 83% of the market value s&p companies. intangible assets, which include trade secrets, proprietary data, source code, business processes and marketing plans, constituted only 17% of these companies' market value. by 2009 these percentages had

nearly reversed. tangible assets accounted for only 19% of s&p 500 companies' market value while their intangible assets had soared to 81%. in a dynamic and globally connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital not only to the success of individual enterprises but also to the future of entire industries. a global study released last year by mcafee, the world's largest security technology company, and science applications international corporation, concluded that corporate trade secrets and other sensitive intellectual capital are the newest currency of cybercriminals. the study found the motivation for such crimes in the cyberunderground is almost always financial. in recent years cybercriminals have shifted from targeting the theft of personal information such as credit cards and social security numbers, to the theft

of corporate intellectual capital. corporate intellectual capital is vulnerable, of great value to competitors and foreign governments, and its theft is not always discovered by victims. our intelligence community warns that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive u.s. economic information and technology. targets include information and communication technologies, business information, military technologies, and rapidly growing surl civilian and dual use technologies such as those related to clean energy, health care and pharmaceuticals. we know that certain actors intentionally seek out u.s. information and trade secrets. the most recent report from the office of the national counterintelligence executive identified chinese actors a the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. the report also described russia's intelligence services as responsible for conducting a range of activities to collect

economic information and technology from u.s. targets. of seven economic espionage act cases resolved in fiscal year 2010, six involved links to china. five companies were accused of the theft of trade secrets earlier this year, four are chinese state-owned enterprises or subsidiaries. in the u.s. e.e.a. serves as the primary tool the federal government uses to protect secret valuable commercial information from theft. the e.e.a. addresses two types of trade secret theft. section 1831 punishes the theft of a trade secret to benefit a foreign entity. section 1832 punishes the commercial theft of trade secrets carried out for economic advantage, whether or not the theft benefits a foreign entity. since enacting the e.e.a. in 1996, congress has not adjusted its penalties to take into account the increasing importance of intellectual property to the economic and

national security of the u.s. the bill increases the maximum penalties for an individual convicted of committing espionage on behalf of a foreign entity. currently the maximum penalty for someone convicted under section 1831 of the e.e.a. is 15 years imprisonment and a fiba fine of up to $500,000. this bill increases the maximum penalty to 20 years imprisonment and up to $5 million. earlier this year the f.b.i. estimated that u.s. companies had lost $13 billion to trade secret theft in just over six months. over the past six years, losses to individual u.s. companies have ranged from $20 million to as much as $1 billion. our intelligence community has recognized the significant and growing threat to our nation's prosperity and security posed by criminals. both inside and outside our borders, who commit espionage. congress should also recognize this increasing threat and enhanced deterrence and more

aggressively punish those criminals who knowingly target u.s. companies for espionage. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 6029 which was unanimously reported by the judiciary committee this month. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 6029, the foreign and economic espionage penalty enhancement act of 2012. this legislation will help to protect the intellectual property and competitive strengths of american businesses by increasing the maximum penalties for engaging in federal -- in the federal offense of economic espionage. this crime, which has serious repercussions for the victim companies and our economy, consists of knowingly misappropriating trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that the offense will benefit a foreign government. as reported by the u.s.

intellectual property enforcement coordinator, economic espionage is a serious threat to american businesses by foreign governments. economic espionage inflicts a significant cost on victim companies and threatens the economic security of the united states. these companies incur extensive costs, resulting from the loss of unique intellectual property, the loss of expenditures related to research and development, and the loss of future revenues and profits. many companies do not know that their sensitive das that been stolen. and those that do find out often are reluctant to report the loss, feer -- fearing potential damage to their reputation with customers and employees. unfortunately the pace of economic espionage collection of information and industrial espionage activities against major united states corporations is accelerating. during fiscal year 2011, the department of justice and the f.b.i. saw a -- an increase of 29% in the economic espionage

and trade secrets theft investigations compared to the prior year. foreign competitors of the united states corporations with ties to companies owned by foreign governments are increasing their efforts to steal trade secret information and intellectual property by infiltrating our computer networks. evidence suggests that this theft is an emerging trend. for example, at least 34 companies were reportedly victimized by attacks originating from china in 2010. over the course of these attacks computer viruses were spread via emails to corporate employees, allowing the attackers to have access to emails and sensitive documents. in response to these growing threats, the united states' intellectual property coordinator in her 2011 annual report called upon congress to increase the penalties for economic espionage and this bill is consist went that recommendation. i want to commend members of both sides of the aisle for

their work on this bill, particularly the gentleman from texas, the judiciary committee chairman, mr. smith, the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the committee, mr. conyers, my colleague from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. and i urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6029. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is agreed to -- mr. smith: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6063, the child protection act of 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 459, h.r. 6063, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, with respect to child pornography and child ex employeetation offenses -- exploitation offenses. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 6063. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, internet child pornography may be the fastest growing crime in america. increasing an average of 150% per year.

every dejan line criminals prey on america's children with virtual unanimous. according to recent estimates, there are as many as 100,000 fugitive sex offenders in the u.s. congress has taken important steps to combat child exploitation, including passage of the adam walsh act in 2006 and the protect our children act in 2008. but our work is not yet done. that is why representative debby wasserman schultz and i introduced h.r. 6063, the child protection act of 2012. it provides law enforcement officials with important tools and additional resources to combat the growing threat of child pornography and exploitation. this bipartisan legislation increases penalties for child pornography offenses that involve young children and strengthens protections for child witnesses and victims. the bill allows a federal court to issue a protective order if it determines that a child