environment and we are working hard, politically, to try to figure out ways to reverse that process or mitigate that process. host: annalee newitz, we have to jump in. unfortunately we have run out of time. the house is about to come into session. if you are interested in her article, "how to death-proof a city," she is also the author of a new book, "scatter, adapt, and remember: how humans will survive a mass extinction." thank you very much for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: now, live coverage of the house as they take up the spending bill for the homeland security department's 2014 spending. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] he parties with -- alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. iller, for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i recently returned from a trip to bangladesh where more than 1,100 garment workers died and ,000 were injured in the plaza building collapse on april 24. many americans may remember the horrible pictures of workers being buried under tons of concrete from the collapsed building. i learned a great deal about what must be done to improve safety conditions and garment industry there. bangladesh is the second largest garment producing nation, employing over four million skilled and industrious workers, mostly women, at a minimum wage of $37 a month. i learned that many factories continue to operate in unsafe residential or multistoried

commercial buildings even after the building collapse. i learned more about poor conditions created by a mire of middlemen hired by retailers to pit one factory against the next, squeezing out the last few pennies for garments. i learned that bangladesh garment workers subsidizes low prices with their lives. i visited the hospital where scores of women, many with amputated legs and arms, were suffering from brain damage from the collapse of that building where they were working and locked inside. i met with a woman who was looking for her son, even though the unidentifyle or unclaimed workers had been buried in a mass grave. and the plaza is not an isolated case. i visited with seven courageous that killed 112 workers last september. seven women who had to jump from the third and fourth floors of their factory because the factory supervisors lock

the ex-- blocked the exit after the fire had started and told them to go back to work or they would be fired and the doors were locked. that was the policy of that factory and many other factories, and just this week we saw poultry workers in china locked in the factories after the fire had started and they, too, perished in the firement seven women who had to make the decision to jump from the third and fourth floors of this factory to save their lives. listen to what the women told me. she was knocked unconscious. she broke her leg and doctors have told her she needs to be on crutches for the rest of her life. another was a breadwinner in her home. she jumped from the third floor. she cannot work because of the pain. her husband is sick. she has two sons, one who qualified for the military college, but she doesn't know if she can afford to keep him

there. association, she did not receive the promised stipend those who were injured six months later. another jumped from the third floor and still has severe pain in her back and leg. she was visibly in pain sitting too long talking to her. she's single and gets by on loans. she has two teenaged sons in school and doesn't want to force them to go to work but she worries how they get by. another tried to escape to the second floor. the factory manager padlocked the door and told everyone to keep working. workers were crying and trying to get out. a mechanic had created an exit. she jumped from the third floor and fell on unconscious. she was four months pregnant and lost her baby. sumi, rather than perishing in the factory, because she wanted her family to be able to identify her body and that wouldn't happen if she was

consumed in the fire. she broke her arm and leg and could not move. her family borrowed money to pay for medical bills before the association funds arrived. two weeks she came to the u.s. to urge retailers and brands to join the enforceable and binding accord on fire and building safety. nasa said she would have died if she waited 10 more minutes to jump. she saw the manager locking the gate to the second set of stairs and grabbed him by the collar to stop him. she cut her arms trying to get through the window to reach the bamboo scaffolding. she can't do anything and she has three children. her stipend went to medical care and her children's education. her son had to leave school and try to find work. i'm glad these women had the courage to tell their stories. there is stories that the fires, workers had a right -- none of this would have happened if they had the right to refuse unsafe work. they would be alive today.

nobody denied that's not the case, but for too long, bangladesh government has blocked new unions. the government has opened the door, 27 new unions have been registered recently, reversing the trend where only one union per year was registered and there are 5,000 factories. i met the leaders of some of these newly formed unions, young and serious workers, but only time will tell if the government will live up to their rights. the obama administration will soon conclude its review of bangladesh's trade preferences under the generallyized system of preferences and in my view these preferences should be suspended. the one message i have for the americans holdouts who won't get to the safety accords is listen to the women in -- from bangladesh. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: mr. speaker, across this country, there are great men and women who answer the call to serve their communities. these folks are blessed with remarkable talents and success and who share their success with their communities to improve the places that we all call home. in north carolina's 13th district, that man was dale. dale was a man who exemplified the character, commitment and charity of our district and who left behind a legacy of improving all things that he touched. born and raised in rural nash county, dale was a proud graduate of n.c. state university with degrees in agricultural economy. and after several years farming in his home community, dale founded nash produce in 1977 with -- and within a decade had grown it into the largest cucumber producer in the country. mr. speaker, dale, a man of constant and restless energy, he served on countless state and national boards, committees and commissions, including his

esident as -- service as president national council. he served as trustee for barton clg and bored member for the salvation army and on the arts council of wilson, north carolina. in addition to all his honors and activism, dale was also maybe to make a direct, personal impact of the lives of his employees and their children. dale cared deeply for the well-being of all his employees, many of whom were migrant workers, by providing them with financial support necessary for them to learn english and attend the local community college. dale and his beloved wife, jenny, also committed to improving the lives of local children. they endowed the scholarship program at n.c. state university which continues to offer significant scholarships to the children of migrant workers. in his later years, mr. speaker, dale was particularly proud of the involvement he and his wife had in creating and promoting the wilson youth

united, which offers direction and guidance to help local youths in the community. dale was a man of great ability, and as a result great means. he recognized the fact that our country is only strong as its communities and that the best solutions to our problems usually come from the most local sources. across the nation, members of the agriculture community send thanks to dale for his decades of untiring work on their behalf. in equal measure, dale educated and prepared those around him to face the challenges of their future. dale was in all things a humble man, but i do believe he would take great pride in the legacy that he leaves behind. mr. speaker, america was built by people like dale, and it's that spirit, not what we do here in washington in a will rebuild our economy. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes.

mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend inside remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, this is the 13th -- this is my 13th speech this year. 13 times i've come here and defended the anti-hunger safety net, the federal programs that provide food to 50 million americans. 13 times i've stood here and talked about hunger as a health issue 13 times i've said we need to set a goal to end hunger now. people ask me all the time, is it even possible to end hunger in america? mr. speaker, the answer is a definitive yes. the truth is we've done this before. that's right, mr. speaker. we nearly eradicated hunger in america in the 1970's. it wasn't easy but the concept was simple. the political leadership in washington made a commitment to end hunger in this country. in the 1970's, congress and the president expanded the food

stamp program, created the w.i.c. program and expanded the school meals programs program. they found the political courage to do what's right because they believe it was unacceptable that anybody in america went hungry, yet, that effort was lost when these programs were slashed in the 16980's. hunger came back with a vengeance. the number of people hungry skyrocketed. it's been rising steadily since the reagan presidency. these programs weren't just cut, they were demonized. we see the results of those years of demonizing these programs today. the truth is snap works. food assistance works. people on food assistance are able to feed themselves and their families. they're able to use money they might have had to use for food for other purposes like rent, utilities, medical costs, school supplies for their kids and transportation costs, just to name a few, in order to be able to buy nutritious food. they didn't have to make the choice between food or rent. but that's not all.

the money spent on food from these programs is spent on food which is produced by our farmers. it is spent in grocery stores. in fact, a recent report showed approximately $70 billion was spent in grocery stores just from snap alone during our economic downturn. that's a lot of money going to our economy when our economy was damaged and needed the help. these programs work, mr. speaker, but what's the response from the republican-controlled house? are they strengthening a program that is already among the least fraudulent, most efficient and effective in terms of our federal government? no. in two weeks, this house will consider a farm bill that will cut $20.5 billion from snap. it will take food away from two million americans. it is a bill that will take 210,000 poor kids off of free school meal programs. it is a bill that will reduce the monthly snap benefit by $90 for another 850,000 people. and that's on top of the

automatic across-the-board cuts that will take place in november even if we cut nothing else. that's not only wrong, it is quite frankly, mr. speaker, beneath this great country of ours, and i will fight these cuts and i urge all my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to stand with me in pushing back on these cuds kutz. we should be -- these cuts. we should be praising these programs. we should be strengthening it and making it work better, not neutering it and taking food away from families. snap works. listen to the words of trish thomas henley, someone who had to rely on snap to make ends meet. in 1993 i was a single parent with a 3-year-old and 18-month-old. even though i was working full time making $8.50 an hour as an administrative assistant i could not afford to pay for food, housing and daycare. i went on food stamps. i remember the shame i felt while other shoppers waited me to count out my food stamps. the only way out of the cycle of poverty and off of aid was

to go to college. ai plide and at the age -- i applied and at the age of 25 i began my undergraduate career. i worked three part-time jobs. i would never ever have been able to get through school without food stamps, pell grants and student loans. it took a village and government aid. i was not a victim. i did not feel entitled. i, then as now, felt immensely grateful that i lived in a moment when my government chose to invest in me. it has been a smart investment and i am grateful that because of that investment i am now able to contribute and live up to my full potential, end of quote. today trish is a professor at the university of cincinnati. you see, myrick, a little investment goes -- you see, mr. speaker, a little investment goes a long way. i ask unanimous consent to insert her letter in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: snap works. 1970's.d in the it works now.

we should be strengthening the ladders of opportunity to help people succeed. we should, with the help of the white house, develop a plan to end hunger now. we should -- we should -- we should not be supporting a farm bill that will make hunger worse. now is the time to renew our efforts and pledge to end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i want to commend the house leadership for its continuing commitment to restore the open appropriations process of the house. that process is absolutely essential if the house is to meet its constitutional responsibility to super intend the nation's finances. it ensures the people's elected representatives can provide the maximum scrutiny of every public expenditure.

in the recent past this process has given way to continuing resolution that is simply rubber stamp past federal spending, thus abrogating congress' most fundamental fiscal responsibility. for this reason i for one will not support any continuing resolutions of this nature. regular order over the nation's finances must be reasserted, and the open appropriations process as begun in the house this week does so. that process, though, is the final step in the procedures established to assure that our nation's spending gets careful examination. the first step in that process, and the most important step, is when programs are authorized or re-authorized. legislation must first be adopted that establishes the programs for which money is subsequently appropriated. that is an absolutely critical function that ensures federal programs are constantly being scrutinized and that congress is asking are these programs

effective? are they meeting their goals? are they worthwhile? are they worth the money we're paying? most programs have time limits on them to ensure these questions are periodically asked. the legal authorization then is the green light to the appropriations committee to provide funding for that program. for that reason since 1835 the rules of the house have limited appropriations to overwhelm those purposes actually authorized by law. unless and until the program is authorized, the house may not appropriate funds for it under this long-standing rule. yet this rule is routinely ignored by the appropriations committee and by the house. last year the appropriations bill as reported out of the committee contained over $350 billion for programs that had either never been authorized or whose authorizations had lapsed years and sometimes decades ago. many of these are vital programs.

re-authorizations should be routine. but many are not. for example, the community development block grant program that pays for a doingy -- doggy daycare center in ohio, and a day at the circus in new york. 18 years ago. yet every year we fund it lavishly. most of the outrageous waste of taxpayer money that ends up in various pork reports stem from these lapsed programs. they are established, then they are forgotten, but the spending keeps on year after year. the excuse for this conduct is that the authorizing committees have simply failed to attend to their duties of keeping authorizations current, including for a number of critical functions, so the appropriations committee takes it upon itself to fund them. what's to prevent this? the house rules allow any member the right to raise a point of order against any unauthorized expenditures, but this is stripped from members

every time an appropriations bill is sent to the house floor, making this rule meaningless and unenforceable and has now reached the point that more than 1/3 of the discretionary spending approved by the house is for purposes not authorized by law. this makes a mockery of the leadership's efforts to restore regular order to the appropriations process. i urge the speaker of the house to direct the authorizing committees to bring the authorizations current for every program within their respective jurisdictions and give them a year 20 do -- to do so. if after a full year the authorizing committees don't believe the programs are worth the time to review, well, then, maybe that's just nature's way of warning us that they are also not worth the money that we continue to shovel at them. once the committees have had that year to review these unauthorized programs and either renew them, reform them, or let them die. i urge the house to restore the

right of every member to challenge unauthorized appropriations on the floor as our rules clearly envisioned and provide. americans elected a house republican majority with one clear mandate, stop wasting or oiler -- our money. to be worthy of that trust we can't allow hundreds of billions of dollars to bypass the minimal congressional review that the authorizing process provides. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to bring attention to a recent university of california at davis study on some effects that climate change will have in california. it looks at habitat and temperature sensitivities for

fish species within the state. california has a diverse and robust ecosystem, as well as the largest estuary in the western hemisphere, namely the sacramento san joaquin delta. it's home to an amazing variety of native species that must be protected. the study found of 121 native fish species in california, more than 80% will be critically endangered as a result of climate change. at the same time, nonnative or envasive species will survive at a much higher rate. we must take action now to address climate change which is starting to affect every aspect of our daily lives, including our water quality, flood risk, more severe weather, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts, and the extension -- extinction of native species. the destruction posed by

climate change to the natural resources we depend on for our daily sustenance is too great. global warming is here. it's dangerous. and we need to take action now. the longer we wait, the more difficult and costly the fixes will be and the more our fellow human beings across the world will suffer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: mr. speaker, in wake of this recent i.r.s. scandal, president obama made this promise to the american people, quote, i'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again, end quote. everything? what about obamacare? in spite of the culture of corruption and cover-up at the i.r.s., the obama administration is moving full

steam ahead with obamacare. a law that gives unprecedented w access and powers to un-elected government bureaucrats at the i.r.s. and several major government agencies. consider the potential for abuse was obamacare's mystery federal data services hub, the largest personal information data base the government has ever attempted, according to the "wall street journal". this data hub will function like a web portal where your personal health insurance, tax and financial information, criminal back ground, and immigration status will be shared and transmitted between agencies, including the i.r.s., d.h.s., and j., h. s.s.a. while far too many questions still remain about who will have access to what information

in the hub, we do know that a woman in charge of the i.r.s.'s eight newly created obama enforcement offices is none other than, sara hall ingram, the former commissioner of the office responsible for tax exempt organizations during the targeted i.r.s. scandal. hile americans do not purchase -- americans who do not purchase government approved insurance soon will find themselves targeted and harassed through i.r.s. audits. right now only time will tell. with so much personal information going in and out of the hub likely privy to both government employees and contractors, many of whom will have discretion over health care coverage and tax penalties, the potential for abuses is staggering. that's why i have introduced h.r. 2022, the stopping government abuses of taxpayer

information. my bill would require not only the i.r.s. but all government agencies with access to obamacare's federal data services hub to present to congress under the penalty of perjury certification that the american people's personal information has not and will not be used for targeting any individual or group based on their beliefs. with full implementation of obamacare only months away, the i.r.s. scandal underscores while we must not only continue to fight to repeal the health care law, but we also have the responsibility to demand safeguards, accountability, and oversight measures to be put in place to shield americans from further targeting and misuse of their personal information. the question is, will the president honor his promise to the american people to do

everything in his power to ensure that nothing like the i.r.s. scandal happens again? mr. president, join me in supporting my bill, h.r. 2022, to ensure safeguards of the american people's most personal information. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kinzinger, for five minutes. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, ensuring students can afford college is vital to ensuring our nation's competitiveness in a global economy. a majority of new jobs in the next decade will require a college degree, which makes higher education an economic necessity for most americans. ensuring all students have the opportunity to go to college will strengthen our economy and grow our middle class and invest in our future.

yet education costs continue to rise. year after year pricing some people out of an education. mr. kildee: college cost vs. dramatically increased. over the last decade the cost of attending a four-year institution has increased 66% over the rate of inflation. for two-year institutions, tuition fees for students have increased 47% beyond the rate of inflation. according to the college board, the annual cost of attending an in-state public college is now well over $22,000 a year. these rapidly rising costs are pricing hardworking families and students out of an education. congress can and must act to ensure college remains affordable for hardworking families. and there are things we can do to do just that.

first, congress must act immediately to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling on july 1. i supported the student loan relief act which would extend the current student loan interest rate, 3.4%, until 2015. unfortunately the republican plan passed last week, the making college more expensive act, would put college out of reach for many of my constituents and students across this country. i oppose the republican plan which would create a variable loan interest rate system, letting student loan rates spike, forcing students to pay higher interest rates. i continue to believe that students deserve the certainty of a fixed student loan interest rate. an ever changing rate, as the republican plan would provide, would create more anxiety and uncertainty for millions of families, and that's just the wrong approach. hardworking students and

parents have already been askedled with $1 trillion of student loan debt. congress should be working to ease that burden. it's time that congress return to regular order and prevent student interest rates from doubling at the end of the month. that means doing what we were sent here to do, going to conversation -- conference, to work out the difference between the house-passed version and expected senate version of this bill. the clock is ticking and rates for millions of students will double on july 18 if we don't act. congress shouldn't let rigid partisanship get in the way of preventing what equates to a massive tax hike on students and their families. instead, let's do our job. and legislate. disagreements on parts of a bill is not an excuse for delay. second, we should enact legislation to allow families to save more for college. recently i introduced a bill with my republican colleague,

congressman tim walberg, giving greater flexibility to families that save money for tuition, books, and other educational expenses. this bill, the helping families save for education act, would increase existing caps on coverdell savings accounts and allow families to contribute more over longer periods of time. these types of accounts offer families a tax advantage choice to save for a child's educational expenses. currently families or beneficiaries can contribute a maximum of $2,000 a year. our legislation would increase the maximum contribution annually for most working families. . families and students under this legislation will be able to save for college until the student turns 22 years old. third, we must continue to provide and fully support pell ants, which provides needs

based grants for students. no one who wants to go to college should be priced out of doing so. so i, along with my democratic colleagues, stand ready to ensure a college degree remains in reach for every student, no matter what their means. finally, we must keep the cost of attending college low by continuing direct state and federal support to universities. in my home state of michigan, we are blessed with great public institutions that provide a world-class education to our citizens. unfortunately, though, in recent years we've seen direct financial support for these universities slashed. such cuts are passed onto students and families. if education is a pry for the for this nation, we must invest in college for our students. i ask a simple question, what is more important than the education of our children? i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to address a situation that is evolving within this nation where older adults on medicare who have the misfortune of experiencing disease or disability and require durable medical equipment, equipment that is designed to allow people to live with dignity and independence in their own homes are -- we're seeing through the actions of c.m.s., through medicare, preventing their access with medicare is awarding contracts to companies who are not evenland -- not even licensed in states to do business. in the end it's going to cause a terrible disconnect with people being able to access the equipment that they need. nd not just the equipment.

i have worked as an administrator. i saw what the tech nick -- technical assistance means using other types of medical equipment. in the evening i was a volunteer e.m.t. and firefighter. frequently i'd found myself in the middle of the night, pager going off, out in the community at a neighbor's home and be able to witness firsthand how important that equipment is there. well, this week the national association for the support of long-term care and its members are in washington to represent ancillary providers of products and services in the postacute care industry. now, as part of this work, these individuals will be garnering signatures on a letter that calls on c.m.s., the medicare administrator, to delay implementation of the widely criticized medical durable equipment, prosthetics and supplies competitive bidding program. now, this competitive bidding program, and believe me it was

misnamed when it was passed. there was nothing competitive about it. was intended to reduce medicare costs, ensure that beneficiaries have access to quality service. it denies competition while worsening access to quality goods and services and harming seniors. in many ways their mission today in washington reminds me of one of my favorite movies. historic piece of our history in this country. "apollo 13" mission. the story of apollo 13 is that that could have been the worst space disaster in history but became one of nasa's most spectacular conquest. everything had gone wrong. an oxygen tank exploded. damaged nearby oxygen tank and rocked command. mission control struggled to isolate the problem with no success. the mission and the astronaut's lives were in jeopardy. to conserve power, the everything down

exsect the radio. the carbon dioxide rose to toxic levels. and astronaut had six days without any food, sleep and freezing temperatures. there was clear danger when the astronauts may not survive but they did. the director famously rallies his team to do what is necessary to get the astronauts home safely declaring failure is not an option. one of nasa's greatest achievements had become not the next feat in space exploration but the recovery of crewmembers aboard apollo 13. c.m.s. competitive bidding is our damaged spacecraft, individuals in need of durable medical equipment are the flight crew. they're in danger. we need competent professionals working together to achieve our mission and bring this crew home safely. after years of bureaucratic delays and mismanagement we're no closer to a system that works for both providers and beneficiaries. that would be the seniors of our nations.

now it appears providers are being awarded contracts by c.m.s. to provide services for round two competitive bidding that lack the required licensing or accreditation for specific states in which they're supposed to service those seniors. i'm extremely concerned that mishandling of the bidding process is going to have a devastating impact on beneficiaries. this is a serious issue that warrants a full review of the process and a delay of -- excuse me -- of round two until this fatally flawed program is fixed. for this reason i encourage my colleagues to sign onto this letter toed a the administrator requesting a -- letter to the administrator requesting a delay so we can review how round one was implemented and fix the problems that exist with the administrator of the program. i am proud to say we have 129 signatures from the members of the house of representatives and i encourage my colleagues who have not taken the opportunity to sign onto the letter to do so today. we need to replace this fatally flawed program with one that is

not label competitive but is competitive and maintains beneficiary access, the durable medical products and quality services. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a major piece of legislation again being considered by this congress, the farm bill. it expired in the last congress, and due to significant political machinations and controversies we couldn't get it across the finish line because it was too expensive, didn't have enough reform, shortchanged nutrition and frankly didn't deal with the conservation elements that americans care about. but we're at it again. and the big contentious issues remain. the direct payments appear to be gone. subsidies that go to farmers

regardless of whether or not they even farm the land, but the big contentious issues remain. subsidization have migrated. there is an effort to have a shallow loss provision or additional crop insurance subsidies that may actually end up being far more expensive than the direct payments they're supposed to be replacing. there is an ongoing controversy regarding nutrition. the senate bill cuts $4 billion at a time when too many americans are in fact food insecure and food stamps, the snap program, plays a vital interest in communities around the country. the house bill is even worse. $16 billion of cuts that families rely upon and frarningly that provide -- frankly that provide $1.70 of economic activity for each

dollar that is given to beneficiaries. well, there is one area that houldn't be unduly controversial. the conservation titles of the farm bill. the farm bill is the most important piece of environmental legislation that will be considered by this congress. the question is whether it will be a good environmental bill or a poor one. the conservation title deals with programs that are very, very important, but that the private market doesn't provide a market-based incentive for people to invest in. i'm talking about things that if you ask the public generally , of course they are concerned about clean air, clean water, soil protection, wetteland and grassland preser -- wetland and

grassland preservation. unless the federal government steps in with either subsidy or regulation, we pay a terrible price. dating back to the monstrous soil erosion that was part of the dust bowl tragedy. well, here again we are in a situation where the conservation titles are in the crosshairs. it's the conservation programs that too often have been cut when we are in need of money. they are touted when people are encouraged to vote for the bill, and then those resources dissipate. ey are diverted to large projects, large confined animal feed lot operations take huge amounts of this money to deal with something that should be part of their cost of doing business and large operations that could fund it themselves

and takes away resources from small and medium-sized farmers. r training draining valuable wetlands. there's a reason why one in four of the applications are approved. because there isn't enough money and too much is diverted. i've introduced h.r. 1890, the balancing food, farms and environmental act, that seeks to change those priorities, to be able to have more money available, targeted towards small and medium-sized farmers and ranchers, be able to put a premium on longer term conservation. and we have a bizarre situation now where because the amazingly bloated and inefficient farm crop insurance program, people are plowing up land that previously had been in conservation that's going to be

eroded, that's probably going to fail because it's marginal cropland but they don't care because the federal government's going to pay them anyway, and the taxpayer loses twice. they pay through unnecessary crop insurance subsidies and they pay because they lose the water quality, the water quantity, the protection for wildlife habitat and soil erosion. by all means, let's have the political tug of war over unnecessary subsidization in terms of fighting nutrition, but let's come together on the conservation items, which really ought to be nonpartisan, focused and economically productive. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. for thein berry --

mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, in a few days, china's new president will conclude a tour of the western hemisphere by meeting with president obama in an informal summit in california. the leaders of the pacific rim's two most powerful countries will discuss many issues of mutual concern. this important relationship, which continues to evolve dynamically, in spite of the difficulties that we both have, radically rom some different philosophical outlooks on both life and government and they deserve our attention and cannedor. -- candor. mr. speaker, it was 24 years ago this week, june 3, 1989, there was a massacre in china in a place called tiananmen square. student protestors who were seeking some form of liberty

for their interest gathered there and i remember very vividly two very stark images from that time. one was the home made replica of the statue of liberty that was erected in their midst. the other was a courageous chinese man who decided to take it upon himself to stand as a silent witness, arms at his side, like a soldier at attention for the cause of human rights. he stood in the street and blocked four tanks as they proceeded on toward the student protestors. the tanks tried to make their way around him and as they did he would move and stand in front of them. clearly there was a dilemma going on in the minds of the young chinese soldiers who were driving those tanks. perhaps they didn't want to kill one of their countrymen so they tried to avoid it, but the other young man persisted and for a time he blocked those tanks courageously and alone of what ing out part

would become part of the tiananmen square disaster. some of his friends or chinese citizens whisked him away from certain death. those were two very stark images in my mind that have stayed with me ever since. but this week on the house foreign affairs committee, another one of those student leaders actually spoke. her name is chi lin. she is a courageous new american, one who knows well the tragedy of forced repression, both political repression but also the painful, silent repression in china that's not spoken of enough. it's that country's forced abortion policies. it's one child policies which has, by the way, disproportionately targded little young girls. she spoke clearly about her passion for china and her love for china and her hope that the united states and china can begin a new embrace in a spirit

of cooperation, rooted in the fundamental respect for human dignity which transcends both language and culture. she argues the fear that led to the cultural revolution, tiananmen square and more recently this again sidal one-child policy which has seriously distorted china's demographic balance, she said that these problems must be transformed by truth. she echos the spirit of chin, the blind chinese activist, who stood up so courageously against oppression last year in china. when he visited here in washington, he said this to us, a small group of us, he said, quote, the intrinsic kindness of persons cannot be defeated by violence and force. mr. speaker, dysfunction in this important bilateral relationship between the united states and china serves neither of our countries. nor the broader world as the influence of this relationship

extends far beyond our respected national borders. china wants our markets. we want their stuff. and conversely there are incentives for our businesses to seek out their low-cost manufacturing. we want their investment. they want our resources. we also run up our debt. they buy the debt. in turn we run down our economy. in an endless chase for near-term gain. this leads to dysfunctional interdependence that's further aggravated by fundamental disagreements stemming from different world views and perspectives on the individual and state. we need to look closely at our notions of self-interest in this relationship, which vividly illustrates the challenges of globalization. but there are also opportunities we could grasp, mr. speaker. the president recently changed the way in which we talk about the concept of national interest in the state of the union address. and i agree with him. we should also -- we should

talk about our national conscience in concert with our national interest. the two are inseparable. in conscience we cannot say that all is well with the u.s.-china relationship. we can hope for a better day and hopefully this meeting between the president and the ew president of china will bear lasting fruit which transcends discussions about defense and economics and to that which is fundamentally just and good for all peoples of the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

defense department programs and policies for 2014. that package includes $552 billion in spending for national defense and an additional $86 billion for overseas contingency operation. that's michael turner of ohio, one of many members testifying at the markup that's going on now and you can watch that live over on c-span3. meanwhile, the senate is not in session today so members could attend the funeral of their late colleague frank lautenberg. the five-term new jersey senator passed away earlier monday from complications of viral pneumonia. we'll have live coverage of his

funeral service beginning at 11:30 eastern and that will be on c-span2. meanwhile, back in washington, news this morning that president obama will nominate u.n. ambassador susan rice to be his next national security advisor. his current adviseon, tom donilon, is resigning. the president had nominated susan rice this year to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state and but she withdrew her nomination after facing criticism over comments she made on a sunday talk show in response to the u.s. consulate attack in benghazi, libya, last year. and the top security advisor does not require senate confirmation. samantha power will be nominated to replace susan rice at the united nations. we'll have that announcement from the white house from president obama this afternoon at 2:15 eastern. and you can watch that on c-span2. >> i realize the pursuit of

peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears, but we have no more urgent task. some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament. and that it will be useless until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. but i also believe that we must re-examine our own attitudes as individuals and as a nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs, and every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward. >> veteran journalist tom brokaw and nick clooney reflect

on the kennedy presidency and his peace speech sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on "american istory tv" on c-span3. >> well, the massachusetts senate election is coming up in three weeks. coming up tonight, a debate between the sdatic candidate, representative ed markey, and republican candidate, gabe gomez. we'll have live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span3. and for a preview of that and also a look at chris christie's successor of frank lautenberg, we bring you to "washington journal." host: reed wilson is joining us from editor of national journal's hotline to talk politics this morning. we'll begin with new jersey, the passing of senator frank lautenberg, opens up that seat and the governor, republican, chris christie, held a news conference yesterday. has scheduled that special

election for october. why and what are the rules in the -- in new jersey for filling this seat? guest: well, new jersey, like more than a few states, unfortunately, has some convoluted rules about how to fill a senate vacancy. this obviously doesn't come up very often, but chris christie's reading of the law was that he had to call -- he had to declare a vacancy, which governors do once somebody leaves the senate in whatever manner they do. he had to declare the vacancy, he had to schedule the election within a certain number of days, depending on how you read the law, it could have been as late as november of this year or as early as what chris christie did, there will be a primary election on august 13, a general election on october 16. so that gives candidates a pretty narrow window of time to get their acts together, to campaign throughout the state and then to run a pretty short

general election. one of the things that's fascinating, candidates will gather five days to gather the thousands of signatures they need to get on the ballot which will limit the number of candidates who can actually qualify. that being said, though, there are a ton of candidates who are thinking of running. if you are an incumbent member of the house of representatives, running in a special election of the senate is taking a free shot. you keep your job if you lose. there's little risk. hey, you might get a promotion to the united states senate, especially if you're a democrat in such a blue state like new jersey. so we're seeing a lot of members of congress contemplating it. i think congressman rush holt will pull papers and start gathering signatures. congressman frank pallone who is already thinking about running for senate, they'll contend with the mayor of newark, new jersey, who's a pretty popular guy in the state. and a pretty big name around sdratic circles outside of new jersey. host: governors were not happy

and they pointed to the cost of a special election. one is estimated to be $24 million. why aren't democrats happy? guest: well, democrats weren't happy because there's this theory if the general election had been held on the same day as the regularly scheduled general election, that is the first tuesday after the first monday in november, this year it's november 5, that somehow that might have helped the democratic candidate for governor who's running against chris christie. polls show right now that christie is leading somewhere between 25 and 30 points. he's running away with this thing. he's got amazing amounts of money. the democratic candidate who is struggling to raise enough just to get matching funds. christie is, as i say, way ahead. the theory -- the thinking goes if this were a senate race and someone like a cory booker were on the ticket, a lot of democrats would turn out, show up to cast ballots and put christie's chance in a little

bit of jeopardy. i'm not sure if i agree with that. republicans are not happy either. christie said he would appoint a temporary placeholder who would hold the seat until the october 16 election. somebody in at least from what christie said who would not be running for senate himself or herself. that points to an older statesman or somebody who's career is wrapping up and might want a few months in the world's greatest deliberative body. the republicans wanted christie to appoint somebody who could run for the seat from a platform and be able to have that little advantage of being the incumbent. i would point out, though, that patrick, the governor of massachusetts, has appointed two placeholders, one to replace the late senator ted kennedy and one john kerry who went over to the secretary of state. he didn't get as much heat from national democrats. i'm not sure national

republicans should blame christie for this. it seems like christie has portrayed it as a move that is best for the state of new jersey and, you know, probably pretty good for his political for turns too. host: we're showing the editor gentlelady from "the star ledger." "christie's self-serving stunt." that paper, very critical of their governor. saying it would behoove him. and then "the new york times" editorial this morning, governor christie's quick, costly decision. "the new york times" also critical of the governor's decision to hold this special election in october. citing the price tag, in "the new york times." you mentioned massachusetts and the race to fill senator john kerry's seat when he left to become secretary of state. there's a debate tonight between the two candidates. talk about what they need to do, what will you be listening for? guest: and the debate is broadcast on c-span, of course, so make sure you tune in to watch that. ed markey is the democratic candidate. he's been in office since 1977.

he hasn't run a difficult race since 1984 when he decided to run for john kerry's senate seat the first time. he ended up dropping before the primary and kept his seat in congress. he's been slow to get up to speed and campaigning and sort of shaking the rust off and traveling around the state and do what you need to do to build the foundations for a campaign in the future. what i'm watching for tonight is how he reacts to being up on stage next to an opponent and we'll see how that -- those interactions go. a lot of democrats are worried that this is the first opportunity, probably the only opportunity that the republican candidate, gabriel gomez, can shake up the race. it looks like markey is ahead by mid to large single digits. some numbers came out yesterday that showed him up a little higher than that. i think it's in the high single digit range right now. so gomez needs to do something

to change the dynamic of the race, get people talking, get people interested and sort of take advantage of the fact that ed markey hasn't really had to run a campaign in the last 30 years. i think what you're going to see is ed markey portraying gomez as a national republican who will vote against president obama's agenda and for the agenda advanced by mitch mcconnell and the national g.o.p. you are going to see gomez talk about ed markey, the longtime politician who's been there forever, who really doesn't -- who has a house here in chevy chase instead of one up in massachusetts. these are the attacks that have been going back and forth from both sides over the last couple months. i think we'll see a lot of that tonight. the question for me is how does markey respond to that and can gomez really shake up this race? host: all right. reid wilson, thank you. we appreciate it. >> live coverage of that debate coming up 7:00 on c-span3. house budget committee vice

chairman tom price called early success of house leadership, quote, noteworthy. at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor in washington. he said he would introduce as early as today the third bill to replace the twin health care law. he also answered questions about the debt ceiling and immigration. this is almost an hour. . >> thanks for coming. i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest today is representative tom price of georgia, vice chair of the house budget committee. his last visit here was in october, 2009. we welcome him back. he's a michigan native who graduated from the university of michigan and medical school. his father and grandfather were also physicians. our guest did his residency at orthopedic surgery at emory medical school. he was elected to the state senate in 199 and became a majority leader in 2002. he was elected to congress in 2004. and according to "washington

post" story, transformed himself into a republican guerrilla warrior, serving as chairman of the republican policy committee and as the republican study committee. in addition to the budget committee, he currently is a member of the ways and means and education and work force panels. so much for biography. now on to mundane mechanical matters. as always we are on the record here. please no live blogging or tweeting, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when it's over except c-span has agreed to not use this video session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you'd like to ask the questions, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on you. we'll start off by offering our guest to make opening comments then we'll move to questions from around the table w that again thanks for doing this. >> thanks to all of you for allowing me to join you this morning. look forward to a good repartee.

i will just make a few comments and just cloak them in the sense that i'm the eternal optimist. i always believe that things are possible, even in this town. and i think that there are great opportunities from a budgetary standpoint frrks a tax reform standpoint, and --, from a tax reform standpoint, the biggest issues and challenges we have in this country absolutely must be addressed. folks on both sides of the aisle appreciate and understand that. our challenge is to figure out how to navigate the shoals of the increasing partisanship that has developed here in this town and pass policy that will benefit the american people. happy to talk about whatever issues you'd like to discuss. health care, budget, fiscal issues. >> you are in danger of setting a record for brevity here in the opening comments. thank you for doing that. i'll ask one or two and we'll go to paul krause and move around

the table. let me ask you, talked about being an optimist and possibilities and budgets and other things, the "wall street journal" had a piece earlier this week that the odds to reduce the long-term deficit have grown much worse. and "journal" cited the shrinking federal deficit, slowing health care costs, and partisan gridlock, meaning any kind of a big budget deal was not likely until after the 2014 mid terms. is that a view you disagree with? >> yes. because i think that the mechanism has been put in place, that is that both the house and senate have passed a budget. as you'll recall the senate hadn't passed bauth in four years. with the prodding of house action earlier, the no budget, no pay act, we encouraged our colleagues on the other side of the capitol to pass a budget. they have done so. the mechanism is in place along with reconciliation to be able to get to a bigger solution than we have had available to us in the past four years.

that paired with the fact that the economic situation, although potentially a little less challenging than it was a couple months ago, is still foreboding. we continue to have deficit that is are unsustainable. we continue to have a debt that is unsustainable. and the only way to get those items under control is through tax reform and entitlement reform. i think both those facts are appreciated on both sides of the aisle. now it just takes the will and leadership to be able to get it done. >> also your colleagues in the other body being willing to go to conference. >> exactly. the mechanism is in place allows us to move to the next step, which we haven't been able to do. >> that's one for me. off to paul. yesterday's "post" had a detailed report on your caucus, and among ajeckedtiffs from members of the congress, were a

drift, fractured, and leadership team still learning to work together and rank and file so green even the leaders' allies tune them out sometimes. how would you assess the state of the g.o.p. in the house so far this season? >> i think if you take where the conference was on january 2, which was at a pretty low point, five u fast forward these months, i any that what we have seen is a real coalescing and maturing of the conference in a way that has allowed us to get through the challenge of the sequester. get through the challenge of the continuing resolution. pass a budget that embraces positive solutions for the country and all sorts of different areas. resequence the debt ceiling discussion and debate. and manner that will be before us now, october-november time

frame. i think that the successes of this conference have had early have been noteworthy. what is -- as my mom used to say is it takes two to tango, unless the senate is willing and desirous of working to solve the greater challenges that we have, then we'll continue to work on these issues in a unilateral way, but our desire is to have it be in a bipartisan way and bicameral way. i think that we've got our sea legs and moving forward. >> paul, where are you? >> congressman ryan has been trying to reach the framework with senator murray before going to conference on the budget resolution. can you talk about what kind of framework you think that they could agree on, and number two, do you think what's most likely is that a conference will be

saved until later in the year and could be used as part of debt limit increase? >> yeah. i think that it's important for people to know that chairman murray and chairman ryan are indeed meeting and talking with great regularity and trying to come to an agreement on the pa ram tirs of a budget conference. and -- parameters of a budget conference. that framework would be less specific than you-all and others might want, but it's important to develop that framework before we sit down in a conference so it's not just a free-for-all. so the issues of whether or not tax reform is directed by the conference committee, whether that's an issue that is included, whether or not entitlement reform and maybe some parameters around what that means, what the 302-a level of the overall level is, is it the 966-67 level, or is it where the

senate appears to be writing their appropriations bills to, the 1058, those kinds of things are important to know before you sit down otherwise the word adrift was used for something else earlier. i think the conference committee would be adrift and not have the focus that's needed. >> we are going to go to david grant. >> the second, do you think what's most likely is budget resolution conference is delayed until toward the end of the year and it's used as part of raising the debt limit? >> i don't know the timing is necessarily the end of the year, but i do believe that the budget conference is the vehicle, if there is an opportunity, to come to a solution on the debt ceiling. that the budget in congress is the vehicle for that. >> david grant, eric, and cheryl. david. >> if i could follow-up, and one quick on immigration. why is there not a conference between the house and senate? some of the colleagues in the senate explicitly say they do

not want the debt ceiling to be raised through that mechanism and they have come to the floor on numerous occasions to block that. they don't want that to happen. why is that? >> the senate? >> they don't want the budget, they don't want the conference committee to be the mechanism? >> difference between the majority and minority. the responsibility of the majority is to govern. and to move in the direction of solving challenges. the responsibility of the minority is to create a contrast and to pull the other side to account. so the roles are different. that's not to say they are right or wrong. the roles are different. >> on immigration, some of the folks, rand paul, marco rubio, mike lee are coming to the republican study committee today to talk about immigration reform. wondering if you would talk about how you feel about the immigration reform discussion thus far? do you think of yourself more as a marco rubio or rand paul or mike lee? >> i think of myself more as a bob goodlatte.

a member of the house who recognizes that regardless of what the senate work product is in the area of immigration, what the house will do is take this in a logical, methodical step by step fashion. and i think that that decision, which has been reached by the leadership in the conference, is the right way to go, to address the issues of border security, internal enforcement, entry-exit matters, of h-1-b visas, agricultural workers, all of those things need to be addressed, yes, but they need to be addressed in a separate fashion so people can work diligently for the solution in those targeted areas. i think that's the way that the house will proceed. >> can i do a quick follow-up? is that sequential, we had mr. goodlatte here a while ago. is that sequential approach tantamount to actually not getting something?

there are a lot of folks who say if you do it sequentially or piecemeal, you doomed it. you doomed immigration reform. do you agree with that assessment? >> no. would we have been better off right now in the area of immigration had we done a bill in every congress for the last four or five congresss? wouldn't we be further ahead? that's not what i'm suggesting we do now, i do believe that a stepwise fashion allows members of congress to be able to have their input on a specific area, border security for example, and have that work product move forward and have the issue being solved in portions as opposed to -- this comprehensive overall solution that clearly hasn't worked in the past, and i don't ee it working now. >> what do you think should be attached to the debt ceiling? what kind of solutions? talk about keystone, this, that, and the other thing. what is mr. price's solution?

>> i think it's important for us to put an array of options out there. so that, for example, the large solution to all of this, and our budget woes and deficit woes, is entitlement reform. so the solutions we put forward in our budget for medicare and medicaid, i think are something that we could embrace in a -- in the context of a debt ceiling. discussion that would get significant resources to be able to be o t a long ball. if that wasn't possible, then pro-growth tax reform, which i think is -- we think is the kind of things that need to get moving, get the economy rolling again. getting jobs being created. solving the incredible challenges that are out there from a financial standpoint for families. that would get you a little less, i think, in terms of a debt ceiling increase, but would move us in the right direction. and then finally, there's -- you

can get back to the dollar-for-dollar boehner rule, whether it's in deficit reduction or in spending reduction. so those -- i think an array of options is important to discuss. so that we are trying to be the ones moving the ball forward for solutions. and being wedded to just one is not helpful for the discussion at this point. >> cheryl. >> trying to assess changing republican attitudes from same-sex marriage with the supreme court ruling coming up, you voted against repealing don't-ask, don't-tell. you voted for doma. i have three questions. would you vote that way today? >> yes. >> you would vote -- let me just ask the question. would you vote that way today? do you see in 2016 a g.o.p. candidate winning the nomination, embracing a platform of same-sex marriage? could that happen?

and then finally, some republicans like ted olson and even the former party chairman, ken melman, argued it's actually good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage. do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. because i think that's the right position. it certainly is the position representative of my district. >> why that's the right decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position, whether it's for the future nomination for our party for president in 2016 or for a member of congress or senate, they ought to espouse what they believe. this is all about the give and take of the battle of ideas. so whether you are a republican candidate espouses that or not,

i think is not something that we ought to be stipulating. whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitudes changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nominee? >> that's why they have the election, right? what did yogi berra say, that's why they play the game. the nation is shifting in its view on this position. whether or not the party shifts i think is something to be seen. >> going back to immigration, if immigration fails and it's the republicans' fault they'll be dead in 2016, do you agree with that? and also looking towards the next -- midterm, what's the republican's message? the conference we talked about has been criticized for passing

some messaging bills, i think you would probably disagree with that assessment, what's the message of those -- house republicans? >> your first question on immigration, i'm sorry? >> do you agree that republicans will be in trouble if they don't -- >> no. i think what the american people want is to see individuals working to solve challenges. i think that the house republicans will demonstrate as a conference and as a body that we have positive solutions for the challenge of both legal and illegal immigration, and we'll be putting those forward. how far down the road we get on that i think will be evidence for folks to recognize that we are trying to address this issue in a way that is responsive to the nation, but also solves the

challenges that we have got in this area. i think we'll be -- i think people will see that we are working to solve the challenge. from a messaging standpoint in 2014, i think the message that i would -- umbrella i would paint it under is that we are interested in creating the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of individuals so that the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. that's what our -- that's what we are about. and our budget clearly was demonstrative of that. the path to prosperity. efforts to get us on a -- to a balanced budget within a 10-year period of time which is hugely important not just to have numbers add up on a page, but make it so the economy can become vibrant again and jobs can be created and people can be much more secure in their future. we have clearly tackled the big issues that are confounding us from a fiscal standpoint in the entitlement arena with medicare

and medicaid. with positive solutions. we haven't seen that from the other side. so i think we've got a great opportunity. i think the tax reform issue that we are embracing right now and the bill that i believe will be coming out of the ways and means committee at some point this year will demonstrate that we are looking out for folks all across this country so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money and not have a government that continues to spend more and more and more than it takes in, but also takes more and more from the american people. i think we have a very positive message. we are working on a health care bill right now that we believe is the positive alternate to washington running your health care. and we are excited about it, and look forward to introducing that within a very short period of time. get folks covered with the insurance they want not what the government wants for them. that solves the problems of portability and pre-existing and saves hundreds of billions of

dollars so we can get those folks covered that are unable to have the financial wherewithal at this point. >> next to roxanne and nancy. i couldn't tell, were you so is nonthreatening. then mark shields, robert schlesinger and lauren foxx. >> i wanted to clarify something, have the republicans the house determined that debate will take place in october and november and the budget conference document would be -- is that sort of the final >> i don't know that -- >> what are the options you guys are looking at? >> i don't think the conference has determined, which i think was your language, but in my sense is that is the vehicle for moving the debt ceiling issue. the budget. i'm soar isry, the budget. -- i'm sorry, the budget

conference report. i think that makes the most sense to me. whether or not there is another opportunity to do that or whether there is -- there certainly are other ways to do it, but i think that's the one that makes the most sense to me. the date, the date that administration selects when they have the opportunity to select when the treasury says that the jig is up. so they define that. i would prefer we move forward before that period of time so that we are not in a crisis mode, which tends to be the time when we make -- when washington makes the least responsible decisions. >> nancy. >> two questions. -- what is the time frame what's the likelihood of it reaching the floor? and two, how do you think the i.r.s., what's happening with

the i.r.s., is is going to affect the scope of what you all are trying to do with tax reform? >> the time frame for tax reform -- hasn't been specifically defined, but i think it's this year. i think probably as soon as we can move forward with it, we will. we have done -- chairman camp has done remarkable due diligence on getting input from ll sectors of society, really, and certainly from the other side with our working groups, where we have done some in a bipartisan way. there's been working over a period of years, literally. i think that -- i suspect by the end of the year, possibly before . i think the i.r.s. issues that have been raised and the real concerns of folks about the allowoning of that agency

us to have greater impetus for tax reform. i'm not one of those who believes that this puts the kibosh on tax reform. i think it gives us a greater opportunity and we embrace that greater opportunity because i think all folks when they look at this issue recognize that the i.r.s. is this huge monolith. it's concerning and frightening to many americans and that anything we can do to simplify the tax code and make it -- make the internal revenue service less threatening to the nation, citizens of this country would be a good thing. that's something that more people will embrace. i think you are beginning to hear that. >> does it change what you're looking at in terms of potentially looking at revenue from tax exempt organizations? or change the scope of it like you're going to look more at tax administration not just tax breaks and rates? >> all that have has been on the table. as chairman camp has said, we are starting with a blank piece of paper and adding the policy

to it as opposed to starting with current policy and extracting things that we don't think are appropriate. >> mark? >> dr. price, i wanted to ask you, the congress has never been as popular, as this year, it's unpopular as any time in history. the democrats are unpopular, but the republicans are pariahs. 13% less popular than democrats. membership and leadership, 19%. that's a problem for the republican party. what can be done? what can be done to remedy it? im' impressed by your optimism, quite frankly, today, and just like to ask you if you would, in your judgment three democratic house colleagues you said there's a feeling across the aisle who share that same sense

of mission and common purpose in getting this done. if you could give us an indication of today. >> well, i think what we have to do is demonstrate that we are moving forward with positive solutions. that we are addressing the challenges that the american people sense. my constituents and folks across this country are frustrated with washington because it -- you look to washington, it doesn't seem to be working. things don't seem to be getting done in a reasonable, responsible way. they know we've got challenges. they know that this country spends too much. they know that the health care system isn't working. they know that we are not creating the kind of energy in this nation that we could. all these things they know. they are not ignorant about the facts of either the challenges or opportunity for solutions.

and they wonder why the folks that they elected to this -- to congress and the executive branch are unable or unwilling to get things done. our lack of popularity is well deserved because we haven't, as an overall group, solved the problems that exist. so how do you turn that around? you demonstrate leadership. and you create positive solutions that are responsive to the needs of the american people. >> house republicans. ordinarily think people blame obama or bush or whoever is in charge. clinton, whoever is there. this seems to be specifically directed at the group that you're a leading part of. >> i think what we have seen is a greater level of demagoguery from the other team over the -- in w years that has

some circles has worked. absolutely. the way we counter that is to remain optimistic about the future of this country. remain committed to the principles that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world. and put forward solutions that address the challenges that we have got. that are consistent with those principles. >> and three democratic house colleagues you look to to work across the aisle in the mission you have outlined here today? >> in tax reform? >> tax reform and entitlement reform. you said common, shared vision across the aisle. >> on our committee ron kind, joe crowley. i think our -- are at least two individuals that appreciate the challenges that we've got are significant and need to be solved. richie neal we have been working on some of the tax issues that he clearly understands the challenges that we've got. that we need to be able to come

together on that common ground that has to be there in order for us to move forward as a nation. we can't -- i tell folks, look, i practiced medicine for over 20 years. took care of patients for over 20 years. i didn't give up the practice of medicine and the incredible privilege it was to care for this people to come to this town and fight with the other side. that wasn't why i did it. i gave up the practice of medicine so i could come to washington, hopefully, and have some positive input into solving the incredible challenges we've got. that same story is basically true for every member of congress, regardless of their background. they didn't give them what they were doing so they could come and fight a partisan political battle over and over and over again. they came to help solve problems. >> ever regret the choice? >> no. absolutely not. what an incredible opportunity it is to be involved in this

beacon of freedom to the world, have an opportunity to preserve that and to increase that opportunity for future generations in this country. incredible privilege. >> robert? >> i'm still a little unclear. two questions. first, why hasn't the house appointed conferees for the budget conference? and secondly, since we are on the debt ceiling, you guys have negotiated an agreement, the white house said they won't. you both stick to your guns, we go over the debt ceiling, in your view what happens then? some people say it's doom and gloom. other people say it's manageable. what's your take? >> point of conferees -- appointing conferees, going to conference in something like the budget, we believe, i believe, requires some parameters. if it's just a free-for-all then it becomes more of an opportunity for the demagoguery and the partisan back and forth

that won't reach any solutions. so chairman ryan i think is very wise in laying out the goal of defining those parameters prior to going to conference. i think that's only -- i think that's a responsible process. in terms of the debt ceiling, again, i'm the optimist so i think that we can get to a solution before we get to that x date. it requires a willing partner on the other side to say, yes, there are things that they would attach to the debt ceiling as opposed to being dogmatic about whether or not they would allow anything to move forward on the debt ceiling. the closer we get to that time rame, that stands will soften. i'm not -- i think that the house has acted responsibly to say that default -- cannot occur, won't occur, which is why

we passed the bill that we did a couple weeks ago to make certain that the pryor at thisization of payments and -- prioritization of payments and the ability of the federal government to pay its debts is solid. >> does it make sense to have a debt ceiling? we are the only country that budgets in this manner. would it makes sense to get rid of it? accrue debt as we pass bills? >> you want to ask the american people does it make any sense to have a limit on your credit card? it probably makes sense to have a limit. yeah. i think you ought to have a debt ceiling. >> lauren. >> i wanted to ask you, you indicated earlier that the house leadership and your conferences decided that piecemeal bills on immigration is the best way to go. what about this bipartisan group working in the house, if they came to an agreement, how much willingness would there be on the part of chairman goodlatte and others to employ a more bipartisan approach before the

senate bill got a vote on the floor? >> it's a great question. i don't know that the parameters that folks are working on in the group in the house are working on are as broad as what we have seen come out of the -- coming forward in the senate. and i think that that group has actually -- would be heartened by any movement on the issue in committee. i do know that what -- i think what would likely occur if the group produces a work product, and it goes to the judiciary committee, my suspicion is the judiciary committee will break it down into its segments and would move it forward. that's not any internal knowledge, that's my sense of what would occur because i think that holds the greatest amount of promise for moving something forward. there used to be coalitions on issues instead of just the shirts and skins we seem to have

right now. you would have a water coalition, and transportation coalition, and a health care coalition, and energy coalition. and they were bipartisan. most often. and the more focused the issue was that came forward in a bill, the easier it was to put forward the coalition to be supportive of that issue moving on. i think there's wisdom in that. broad, expansive, comprehensive pieces of legislation give everybody an opportunity to say, well, i don't like that so i'm going to oppose it. don't like that, so i'm going to oppose it. and the example for this is truly the state legislatures. state legislatures, most of them, have single issue rules. you can't have a piece of legislation that has -- soup to nuts. you got to have very focused legislation. i think that's what allows you not only to produce a better work product but put forward a

coalition that can solve the problem. >> we are going next to paul, tom howl, david, alexis. paul? >> first one for dr. price, we hear from businessmen, insurers, doctors that obamacare when it kicks in is going to be a nightmare. you have get the secretary of health and human services who say, no problem. it's going to work out fine. where are you and what are you hearing? i think that senator baucus was very wise when he observed that the law when it is spli implemented looks like it's going to be a train wreck. i think what we need to do is to pull the emergency brake before the wreck occurs. i don't -- as a physician i can tell that you this law is unworkable. for patients and for dogs. for the health care system it's

absolutely unworkable. as a former employer, i can tell that you it doesn't work for employers or employees. and as a former state legislator, can i tell you it doesn't work for states. as a member of the united states congress, can i tell you it doesn't work for the federal government, either. it doesn't work for anybody in this system. and i think that there are so many other positive solutions that embrace what i call patient-centered health care, which is patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not washington, d.c., that we ought to move in that direction as soon as is possible. my concern, my fear is that if this law is allowed to come into its full glory, that it won't work, it will collapse, but in the interim, real people will be hurt. and it is irresponsible of us as a congress and as a government, i believe, to allow that to occur not because of anything inherent within the people

trying to make it work, but because of the rules that have been put in place. we'll continue to work and fight to put forward positive solutions as alternatives. >> thank you. you have been around long enough to remember the page program, and there are some former pages who are trying to bring it back now. do you think the leadership or even you would be open to doing that? >> i think the page program was a huge asset to our body, but also to the -- especially the individuals who were able to participate in it. i haven't had this discussion with anybody, but i think it ought to come back. >> tom. >> following up on the train. you mentioned that republicans are working on an alternative bill to the a.c.a. can you be more specific than just patient centered solutions? because i think there's this attitude that republicans say they have a replacement, alternative, but they don't know

what it will do. can you be more specific? >> we'll be introducing a bill maybe even today that will be a comprehensive opportunity to solve the challenges in the area of health care so that we move in that direction of patient centered health care. and there are a whole lot of things in it, but a couple specifics, one, we've got to get folks covered. you got to get americans covered with health insurance. there are a couple ways to do that. you can do it the way the administration and congress did it in the a.c.a., and that is to mandate that they have coverage. dictate they have coverage. force them to have coverage. but the i.r.s. in charge of whether or not they have coverage. we simply believe that's the wrong way to do it. the way we propose is make it feasible for every single american, from a financial standpoint, for every single american to purchase the coverage they want for themselves, not that the government wants for them. do you that through the tax code. series of deductions and credits

and refundable advanceable credits so that every single american has the financial wherewithal, feasibility, and incentive to have health coverage. second, you got to solve the insurance challenges. two biggest are portability and pre-existing. you ought not lose your insurance if you change your job or lose your job. that's a holdover from a bygone era when if you worked for a company, you tended to work for that company forever. our son just graduate interested college last year, statistics say that he will work for 12 different employers in the course of his career. which means if the employers provide health coverage, if they are able to continue to do so, he'll have to plug in 12 different spots with who knows what. the best way to solve that is to allow every single american to own their health coverage regardless who is paying for it. you solve the portability issue overnight just like that. like 401-k plan.

you change your job, lose your jorks you take it with you. that's an easy one. you ought not to be priced out of a market if you have anfall diagnosis. if you suffer from anfall disease. and right now folks in the individual and small group market, about 18 million individuals, are under threat of being priced out of the market with the next visit they have to their doctor if they have anfall diagnosis. that's craziness. that's a system that isn't working. how do you solve that without having the federal government dictate to people and dictate to insurance companies and dictate to employers what they must do? you make it so that those 18 million individuals can pool together. you make insurance work so that they -- you get the purchasing power of millions. then the health status of any one individual, the average health status doesn't drive up the cost of health insurance for anybody because you get the power of numbers. it's why self-insured plans work. it's why the federal employee health benefits plan works. that's an easy one to solve as

well. finally, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars in this country in health care. the main way we do that is through what's called practice of defensive medicine. it's what i did. it's what every single physician in this country does, to make certain if they are ever called into a court of law they can look the judge and jury honestly in the eye and say i don't know what you expected me to do because i did everything. everything. and everything was rarely necessary to either treat or diagnose the patient. rand estimates it's $600 billion of waste in this country on that. jackson health care has done a study and they estimate it's one out of every $3. that's $800 billion. that's big money still. even in this town. you can solve that not by a cap on noneconomic damages, which i don't believe does a thing to decrease the practice of defensive medicine, but put in place a lawsuit abuse reform system that the president has talked about which would recognize that society

guidelines, if the doctor does the right thing based upon what his or her specialty says is the right thing to do for a set of symptoms or diagnosis, that individual is allowed to use that as an affirmative defense in the court of law. it becomes a higher bar to get over for the plaintiff, not preventing anybody from going to court, but a higher bar if the doctor does the right thing. that's the kind of thing i think would actually change the culture of the practice of medicine. you can get folks covered. everybody. you can solve the insurance challenges. you can save hundreds ever billions of dollars. you can do all of those things without putting the federal government in charge of a doggone thing. that's what i mean when i talk about patient centered health care. >> david. >> the house of representatives passed the first appropriations bill. as you know we have very widely differing spending levels in the house side and senate side. it's difficult to see how those are going to gets resolved without an overall budget agreement. so are you resigned that we will

likely need to have a c.r. to get us through to the new fiscal year? because the appropriations bills will probably not going to be able to pass all of them? >> i sure hope not. i think appropriating by continuing resolution is a failure of the body, is a failure of the responsibility that we have to work through these issues. at this point an annual basis. to move and allow for the flexibility and changes in public policy from an appropriating standpoint every year. the house will, i think, work through the appropriations bills. i'm hopeful we'll get all of them done. i know that's the goal of chairman rogers. and we started that last evening and we'll work through them. i think that the -- i think just doing a c.r. at the end of this

doesn't respect either the citizens or the individuals who are working on their behalf in the house at this point on the appropriations side who are bringing their best effort to the table to put in place the priorities for the country. i do believe that the budget on both sides, the budget in the senate and house, was a huge step forward because the number that was agreed to, the overall number, discretionary number, 302-a number was the same on both sides. if i would have sat at this table four months ago and said the house and senate were going to agree to the same top line number in the budget, none of you would have believed me. and would you have been right in your skepticism. but that's what happened. so we've got the foundation for moving forward on the appropriations bills. >> sue. >> immigration, when you talk about the approach, one of the

pieces continues to be the pathway to citizenship. do you think there is a legislation for path to citizenship that could pass the house with a majority of the majority? >> i think at this point that would be highly unlikely. because i don't think there's any trust of our conversation in the administration to enforce -- conference in the administration to enforce the laws as they relate to much of the immigration. not just this administration. it's been previous administrations as well. the american people don't trust washington in this area because the promise that was made in 1986 has been broken. in 1986 there were about three million individuals who were here, estimated to be here illegally. and the agreement, bipartisan agreement was that we will provide a path to citizenship for those three million individuals and control and secure the border so we are never in this situation again.

and we as a nation did away with the path to citizenship and woeful job on controlling and securing the border. there is no trust at all. the first step in regaining that trust is living up to the promise that was made to the nation back in 1986, and that is controlling and securing the border. until the administration is able to do that, i don't think there is any trust, whatever we pass, would be enforced or made certain that it worked in a positive way. the boston bombing that occurred pointed out a huge defect in lack of responsibility and enforcement of our simple student visas. there are hundreds of thousands of young men and women here on a student visa. when it expires we ought to know that as a nation. it's foolishness. it's irresponsibility. it's reckless not to know when somebody's visa expires and make

certain that they either regain a new visa or that they return to their home. and what that pointed out is that one of the bombers clearly exited this contry, went back to the country where he was given asylum from. this fellow was given asylum from a country he visited apparently repeatedly. so the asylum system doesn't work. at least didn't work in this instance. then he returned to this country with an expired student visa and regained access. this is a system that is tirably broken -- terribly broken and needs fixing. the first step is to make certain what we have currently on the books works. and prove that it works and demonstrate that it works. that's the way you regain the trust so you can move forward and solve it in a positive way. >> alexis. >> i was wondering if you can there any -- are

concerns about how the various numbers of the congressional delegation running for the same office, if that rivalry will have an impact? >> senator chambliss announced in january that he would not be running for a third term. so that opened up an opportunity in the state of georgia. these open senate seats don't come along often. so a lot of people jumped at it. for those of you who don't follow georgia politics, three of my colleagues in the house are running for that seat as well as former secretary of state, karen handle, and there's a rumor of one or two individuals from the private sector getting in. we have a late qualifying time. we qualify in april of next year. our primary is late. primary is in july of next year. there is a lot of time between now and then. i think it's too early to get predictions about what will

happen. i think that -- i know that the citizens of the state of georgia want somebody who is going to actively and aggressively work to solve the challenges that we've got and they want somebody who is a solutions-oriented person. i think that the folks who are running from the house will have a bit of a challenge because of what was pointed out earlier, and that's the popularity of congress isn't at an all-time high. i think that they will have a challenge getting over that hurdle. they also will have a significant voting record that they'll have to answer to. for those running from the outside, it becomes an easier political target. i know that it's going to be a vibrant and robust campaign. i think that the citizens of georgia are excited about the opportunity to move through that process. >> anybody who hasn't had one

before we do a second round? cheryl. case of thebreaking young girl in pennsylvania, the 10-year-old who needs a lung transplant. i know you were there. i'm wondering as a doctor what do you think of kathleen sebelius' decision not to intervene in that case? conversely, do you worry in asking her to intervene if the government did intervene it would set a precedent where the government could intervene in individual health care matters? >> this is a situation, heartbreaking situation right now. of a 10-year 9 month old girl who has cystic fibrosis which in her case is a death sentence because of the severity of the disease. there is a solution. the scientists and the doctors who are caring for her and in that area as i understand it all

believe that she is an ideal can gate for a lung transplant, which is potentially a lifesaving procedure for her. can be of a -- what classified as anything other than an arbitrary cut off, which is the age of 12 years, she is ineligible right now to receive either an adolescent or adult onor lung. we've got patient whose physicians and whose family are desirous of moving forward with a solution that is available and they are being held up not because of science, not because of the doctors, not because of the capability of the facility, not because of the willingness of the family or patient, but for se of a rule and out that, the escape for that when everybody agrees that this young lady ought to get a lung transplant, the escape for that is the secretary of health and human service who is has the

full legal authority to sign a waiver, exclusion, to allow that procedure to move forward. it is astounding to me that the secretary of health and human services won't provide that waiver. not just for this young lady, but for apparently the two other young people who are also on this list and awaiting a lung. as i understand there were three pediatric lung transplants last year. three. so the likelihood of a pediatric lung become ag vailable for these children is -- becoming available for these children is not great at all. we are not asking for her to go to the top of the list, it's to be eligible for the list. from a clinical standpoint her health status would dictate under the rules of organ transplantation would move her to the top of the list if she were allowed to be on the list. so the notion that the secretary

of health and human services is plow texting -- protecting some sang row santh thing so we keep order in the system i disagree with adamantly and i think that the days -- this young girl's days are numbered with her current clinical status. i have yet to see any reason demonstrated to me why the secretary ought not provide that waiver. >> question for the doctor. it's been discussed, i believe it's been floated by congressman diaz-balart, the possibility that if there is some sort of legalization program for the people here illegally now, that it should be important to force them to buy insurance so they are not sort of a drain on the system on the resources in the system. and it's been reported in a way as sort of an individual mandate, but aim not sure that gets at it. could you talk about that a little bit? do you support that idea?

where should it go assuming there is some sort of a program in there? >> i'm not sure i want to buy the premise of the assumption. tough issues in conflating the issue of illegal immigration and how we deal with as a nation those who are here in that status, and health care i think confound both of the issues and makes each of them less likely to be solved. so my preference on this because i haven't spent a lot of time on this area of the immigration matter, is to allow it to work through, that's why i commend chairman goodlatte so much for his process that he's defined is to allow this to work through in our normal committee process and allow all of the pros and cons of what you describe and what others would say are options to

be available for public evaluation and for evaluation of the members of congress and i think will come up with a work product and a solution that is most able to be supported by the members of the house. >> let me ask you -- >> follow up. you said the house and senate agreed on 39023 and the budget resolutions. i'm wondering what you mean given that the house discretionary limit is 967 billion. and the senate discretionary $1.058 $1.1c058 -- trillion. >> the discretionary number the senate agreed to was $966. what their budget also said was that they in a nebulous way said that the sequester would be fixed, done away with. that's how they get to the 1058.

they are writing to an outcome that has yet to occur. so the agreement was a discretionary number of 966 which is the starting point. we as you well know don't believe that the sequester has been administered in a responsible fashion. we believe there's a better solution for the sequester. we believe that the spending level needs to be in place, but that there is a much better solution in terms of prioritization which is why the appropriations bills are so important so you can define where those priorities are. that's what we'll be working through. i think the common ground is 966, 967 number. dealing with the sequester is something that has to be dressed and the process that we'll go through to address that on our side will be the appropriations bills written to the 966 sequester number. >> in the three minutes remaining, let me ask you a question prompted by "the new

york times" article on colonoscopies. this is what the "christian science monitor" brings to the special breakfast. >> i'm an orthopedic surgeon. >> i'm not going to go down that road. what struck me was in that really remarkable piece of reporting by the times was the wide variance in prices. looking down the road you were talking about not wanting the government in health care and having it be patient centered. looking down the road say five or 10 years, sir, is it going to be possible for that kind of model without sort of more government interference to be to work given what's supposed to happen to health care costs? isn't the government in the end going to have to do more to bring down this wide variance in cost so that we can afford to take care of geezers like myself? >> we want to take care of all

geezers like yourself as a nation. and i'm approaching that geezer. i think that the argument can be credibly made that a significant portion of the cost and the reason for the costs of health care is governmental involvement. if you look at the -- one of the things that i would use as evidence for that, if you take areas of health care that are uncontrolled by government, you see significant reductions in price over a period of time, and greater flexibility, and greater options, and greater choices for patients in those areas. so i think that the argument that the government has to engage and get involved so that it keeps prices under control is a lack of appreciation for the main reasons why health care spending and costs are out of control.

and i would suggest that it's significantly related to governmental intervention in the first place from a pricing standpoint and cost for health care. i think we can hold down costs in a much more efficient manner if you allow patients and families and doctors make medical decisions. >> you did that right ending at 9:30. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> a couple of minutes representative price and his colleagues in the house will be gaveling in to work today on the second fiscal year 2014. thee will have undertaken this week. they paled the military construction and veterans' affairs bills yesterday. and today they take up the $47 billion homeland security spending measure. they'll also swear in the new member from missouri, jason smith, who won the special election. that will happen sometime this afternoon. meanwhile today we are covering funeral new york the service the late senator lautenberg of new jersey who died monday. ll three former new jersey governors, governor christie, core die, as well as members of

senators and other members of congress. >> when i first came until south orange new jersey 21 years ago, i was thrilled to discover that among the congregation's membership was one senator frank lautenberg. having grown up in a household that defined itself by its liberal democratic values, senator lautenberg was a household name. an iconic figure. someone who earned the admiration of my parents and family friends. not easy. here was a man who, like my father, was the son of jewish immigrants. a man who worked hard, achieved success, and then used that success to do good in the world, both through his philanthropy and political involvement. senator lautenberg, never forgot his humble beginnings, and those memories fueled his passion and commitment -- >> vice president joe biden and

his wife, jill, in attendance, as is former secretary of state hillary clinton. watch our live coverage over on c-span2. next up on c-span we'll take you live to the house floor. they are taking up today 20914 homeland security spending bill. $47 billion which includes $5.6 billion for emergency disaster relief, and it increases by 7% funding for customs and border protection. votes later today. live coverage of the house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer offered by our guest chaplain, reverend thomas eliott, canyon united meth dividend church in georgia -- methodist church in georgia. the chaplain: gracious god, you are the hope and end of all creation. through your love and mercy, you give us life and freedom. you bless us with an abundance of resources.

you invite us to faith. we thank you for your presence and pray that you will guide us in the work you seek to accomplish. forgive us our indulgences and selfishness, remove the prejudice, hatred and contempt that divide us. govern our thoughts with liberty and justice for all. make us mindful of the needs of all peoples. transform our economic woes, influence our decisions. free us from terrorism and war. reveal your will to us. today we pray for our nation, our president and this congress. the military and citizens, the less fortunate and peoples of the earth. turn our hearts to you, that we

may serve this day with compassion, justice, courage and peace. in jesus' name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands aproved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from arizona, mrs. kirkpatrick. mrs. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, members and guests in the gallery, please join me for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for one minute. mr. woodall: thank you, mr.

speaker. it's my great pleasure this morning to introduce to my colleagues, dr. tom eliott. not only is he our guest chaplain today and the senior pastor atian onunited methodist methodist united church. i've known tom, he's here today with his wife, kelly. he is vounleded and loved by his -- surrounded and loved by his daughtery lucy and his son thomas. he has a love of the lord and that's a love that he shares in the pulpit on sunday morning and a love that you can find expressed in music at coffee houses around the district, in his wild at heart band, nights during the week. it's my great pleasure to have tom with us today. i thank you for your service to our community, tom, and i thank you for your service to the lord. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute

speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today in strong opposition to the recent supreme court decision in maryland vs. king. as justice scalia warned in his brilliant dissent, the consequence of this week's ruling is that your d.n.a. can now be taken and entered into a national d.n.a. database. if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, or for whatever reason. on the day i was sworn in, i pledged that i would be a staunch defender of individual liberties and of our constitution. an unwavering advocate for freedom. this includes upholding the fourth amendment to our constitution, that protects us against unreasonable search and seizures. i strongly disagree with the

five justices in this case who held that d.n.a. collection is just another metric of identification. like a name or a fingerprint. it is not. it's an intrusive invasion of privacy and property that should never be allowed before a person has even been tried, convicted or served a warrant. as my senate colleague warned, unchecked, government power and intrusive personal databases pose real risks to our liberty. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we are nearing the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. yet too many women continue to struggle, too many women still don't receive equal pay for equal work. 50 years after president kennedy signed the equal pay act, women still earn only 77

cents for every $1 earned by men. that is not only wrong, it's bad for our economy. working families often rely on two incomes. mrs. kirkpatrick: and more and more households have women as the primary source of income. that means women's take-home pay must cover the rent, the grocery, the doctors visit, and when women succeed, our families succeed. so does our economy. i was proud to cast my first vote in congress for the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, which restored women's right to challenge unfair pay in court. but there's more work to do. over the past 50 years, the equal pay act has never been updated or strengthened. that's where the paycheck fairness act comes in. it strengthens and closes loopholes in the law. so let's get this done and send an important message that work is work, no matter who is doing it. let's pass the paycheck fairness act and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman rom utah seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i am honored to represent the great state of utah and salt lake city. forbes magazine recently rated utah as the best state in the nation for business and careers. in salt lake city, it was recently ranked as the best city in the country for new graduates. but while the state of utah is doing very well, the rest of our nation is not. as a small business owner, i know that government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. this sinessmen all over nation are asking, no, they're even begging for one thing, get government out of the way. allow our economy to grow. create new american jobs, expand opportunities, don't expand government. there are right now 4.4 million americans that have been jobless for more than six months and this is completely

unacceptable. we must simplify our tax code. we need to become energy independent. we need to move forward with projects such as the keystone pipeline. we need to reform health care and entitlement programs which account for the vast majority of our deficit and debt spending. americans deserve better. we can do better. yield back now my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, it's now been 885 days since i arrived in congress and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis.

now this congress is pretending our unemployment crisis is completely over. this congress is acting as though surface scandals and the now rapidly shrinking budget deficit are the only issues that matter to this country. try telling that to any of the 1 million unemployed americans who are today struggling to keep their homes and to pay for their food and health care. try telling that to any of the three million americans who have been unemployed for more than a year and are facing the inscribeably painful possibility that they will never work again. mr. speaker, unemployment is the nation's true deficit. let's pass the jobs now act and the president's american jobs act to end it. our mantra of this congress should be jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the first amendment is under attack in madison, indiana. one of my constituents, bill gurodey, is a profile in courage as elite gates against the government's attempt to force him to violate his first amendment rights and comply with obamacare's contraceptive mandate. churches deserve protection from this mandate but private businesses deserve and business owners deserve protection too. mr. messer: mr. gurodey is not alone. some businesses may choose to close their doors instead of complying. others may be fined out of business. ask yourself, if the federal government can make mr. gurodey purchase a product in violation of his religious beliefs, what can it do to you? i applaud mr. gurodey's courage and urge the house to pass the health care conscious rights act to stop this attack on religious liberty. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> this june, as we celebrate lgbt pride month, lgbt americans have much to celebrate. every day this country moves closer and closer towards embracing full equality for all of its citizens. and yet the path to equality and justice saw a setback last week when one of our nation's largest companies chose to deny fundamental workplace protections for its employees. mr. pocan: for the 14th year in a row, exxonmobil shareholders voted to strike down a proposal that would specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. this is a company that has received more than $1 billion in government contracts over the last decade. simply put, the government should not be in business with companies that discriminate.

exxon's decision makes it part of a shrinking minority. 88% of fortune 500 companies specifically ban employee discrimination based on sexual orientation. b.p. doesn't discriminate, chevron doesn't discriminate, shell oil doesn't discriminate, but exxonmobil does. and their anti-equality policies should start to hurt their bottom line. unfortunately it is still legal to fire someone in 29 states based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. exxonmobil's backwards decision highlights why we need to pass a comprehensive employee nondiscrimination act. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. long: mr. speaker, all americans are aware of how our current tax code is too complex and punishes people who save, invest and achieve economic

success. however, the recent news coming from the i.r.s. illustrates another pressing reason for tax reform. our current tax code puts too much power and potential for abuse into the hands of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats. the american people deserve a tax system that cannot be a political weapon to be used against them. that is why i'm a proud co-sponsor of the fair tax. the fair tax would eliminate the i.r.s. by replacing the current tax code with a simple consumption-based tax. the fair tax would be collected equally from all americans, with no opportunity for the government to attack or discriminate against innocent citizens. the fair tax is a reform measure that offers a rare chance to unleash economic growth, create good jobs and at the same time protect the rights of american people. i urge this body to swiftly pass the fair tax. and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek

recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. bono mack: thank you, mr. speaker -- ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. the equal pay act passed in congress and it should be no surprise. it makes sense. back in 1963, 201 democrats joined with 161 republicans to support equal pay for equal work. only nine members voted no. back then women earned just 59 cents for every $1 men earned and today we're still 23 cents short on the promise of equal pay. half a century later, women earn 7 -- 77 cents for every $1 men make for the same work. the paycheck fairness act would strengthen equal pay act, giving women the paychecks they deserve. and have earned. it would eliminate the loopholes and carveouts that have denied women basic fairness for decades. as we celebrate the passage of the equal pay act, let's hope

for a return to bipartisanship and common sense. let's make sure that women are paid what they deserve and pass the paycheck fairness act. equal pay was bipartisan 50 years ago. it should be bipartisan today. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, our top priority in congress should be job creation and help the economy. too many americans are struggling. the unemployment rate remains too high. the labor force participation ate continues to drop. and the national debt is still nearly $17 trillion. this is due to the administration's failed economic and overreaching regulatory policies, wasteful government spending and higher taxes are not the answer the american people are looking for. mr. hall: america needs real solutions for economic recovery

in order for all americans to thrive, we need jobs. in our of new jobs country are generated by small businesses. many small business owners are holding off hiring new workers because they are uncertain of higher taxes. more government red tape, more regulation. we must remove unnecessary regulation. we need to promote real solutions that heal our economy and create new jobs. americans share the same goal, a healthy economy and positive future and we need to keep the american dream alive for future generations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week the house will take up homeland security appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2014. mr. higgins: unfortunately, this legislation once again limits the number of cities in urban area security initiative program to 25. this is unacceptable and

excludes many cities determined to be a high risk of a terror threat. the region which i represent includes four international border croddings and busiest passenger crossing along the northern border with canada. the largest electricity producer in new york state, and within 500 mile radius, 55% of the american population, and 62% of the canadian population. recently authorities thwarted a terror plot which the target was thought to have been a bridge in niagara falls. it's unthinkable this bill would exclude buffalo from this important program it was once eligible for. mr. speaker, protecting the homeland should be a federal government priority. we should be doing more not less to protect our most vulnerable cities, including returning cities to this program ensuring that we maintain the capabilities gained under the program. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: unanimous consent

to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, the first amendment of our constitution is first because nothing is more important than security liberty and freedom of speech and freedom of the press. and there are currently two scandals that put into president the president's commitment to this sacred freedom. with the justice department secretly obtaining phone records of reporters at the associated press and fox news and the i.r.s. targeting certain groups because of their political beliefs. yesterday the ways and means committee held a hearing with the victims of the i.r.s. abuse and we learned that i.r.s. officials not only asked many appropriate questions to members of these groups like what books they read or what was in their prayers, with you also tried to tell three americans who they could not protest against or even illegally release private tax records to groups with opposing viewpoints. freedom of speech and press should never be questioned in this nation, mr. speaker. and certainly we can all agree that units of the federal government should never use

their powers to punish americans simply because of their ideas. this house will get to the bottom of this issue by following the facts. free americans. our great patriots deserve no less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this is the 50th anniversary of the equal way act and i rise to urge my colleagues to strengthen that law by passing the paycheck fairness act. mr. barrow: i'm a proud co-sponsor of the paycheck fairness act because even today working women in my district in georgia and across the country earn on average 77 cents on every dollar that the men earn for the same work. the penalties under the current law aren't strong enough to deter employers from breaking the law. it doesn't protect employees from retaliation for sharing salary information with co-works. this will plug the loopholes. mr. speaker, i'm proud to stand here today with so many of my colleagues to call for the

passage of these long overdue improvements in this landmark law. everything we ignore the shortcomings of the law is another day we deny women their rights under the law. that should end right now. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss obamacare's assault on jobs and full-time employment. the law is costing wages that are important to families in these tough economic times. i received an email from a constituent in my district who is a teacher's assistant. because of the 30 hours that is considered full-time employment in the affordable care act, her hours have been cut to 28 hours a week. she stated, i don't even need health insurance. i get it through my husband's employment. because of this bill i will be losing money that my family needs and depends on. indiana is also home to over 300 medical device companies with an economic impact of over $10 billion a year. companies in indiana like hook medical have already scrapped

plans for expansion. in the state citing the 2.3% medical device tax. yesterday i discussed with secretary sebelius the vote in the senate, 79-20, and vote in the last house congress, 270-146, including 37 democrats, to repeal the law. mr. bucshon: but the administration sticks by the fact they do not want that part of the law repealed. mr. speaker, this administration is telling americans for the last five years they are trying to create jobs, but they are refusing to acknowledge the jobs being lost because of their health care bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, by 2018, 63% of all american job openings are going to require some sort of post high school education. mr. cartwright: workers who

hold bachelors degrees make on average double the people who don't have bachelors degrees. if we fail to take responsible action this month, student loan rates are going to double on 7.4 million american students. at a time when other interest rates are at historic lows, this body passed h.r. 1911, a bill that would make college more expensive. i urge this body to pass h.r. 1433, to hold interest rates where they are in order to broaden opportunities and allow everybody a piece of the american dream. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor an educator, leader, author, and a role model for

young men from pennsylvania. this week dr. joseph cox will preside over his final commencement ceremony as head master of the secondary school for boys in haverford county. he took office as the head master in 1998. and since then he has lifted the school and faculty with his firm belief teachers and boys must be firm, fair, funny, focused, and friendly. mr. meehan: these were the backbone of his philosophy of teaching. dr. cox set a long example for men outside the classroom as well. he's a 0-year army veteran, serving his country in vietnam, commanding a battalion of the famous 101st airborne division and retiring as a kohl member. a warrior, a poet, a cultivator of the minds of young men, a good character by his example. he leaves an institution not

just better than he found it, but he leaves the lives he has touched so much richer for the experience of working with him and learning by his side. dr. cox, you are ever measure what it means to be a teacher. the community thanks you. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: i rise today to recognize a very talented group of students from the beautiful island of molokai in my district. last week i had the chance to meet with the middle school goldeneyes robotics team. beating out 5 other teams, the goldeneyes took first place at the hawaii first lego league championship in december of 2012, and recently attend add national invitational. the first lego leg robotics program created to get students excited about science and technology. the team members included eric, billy, noah, katie, kale, and

katelyn with great coaches david gonzalez, and jennifer. together they researched and developed conceptual glasses using face recognition software to help the elderly remember the people that they met. they researched age related memory loss and put national park 600 hours of research and practice to prepare for the competition. they are now applying for a patent. i'm so proud of these young people as they represent the great talent that exists in our state of hawaii, and they are who give me hope for our great future. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i want to commemorate the life of an outstanding american, viola urgen, who passed away on may 21. she was an american whose life

was touched and will touch many americans for generations to come. she was the daughter of a finish and swiss immigrants. she graduated high school at age 15 and was the first female to earn a b.a.a. in accounting from the university of minnesota. mr. fleischmann: after graduation, she and her husband, bill, moved to oak ridge, tennessee, in 1947. as a dedicate the mother, grandmother, and great grandmother she was still volunteering well into her 97th year. her commitment to excellence in everything she did is reflected it the lives of her five children and 15 grandchildren who span this nation as business leaders, doctors, and volunteers in a number of fields. it is impossible to measure the number of people whose lives will be touched by her time on earth. her work over 40 years in helping oak ridge children's museum become one of the nation's finest museums reflects her commitment to helping others.

she was an extraordinary person who excelled in an extraordinary generation. she was a great tennessean who gave her life tirelessly to her family, friends, and community. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman -- gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: i rise in strong support of equal pay for equal work for women -- ms. matsui: june 10 marks the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. when it was passed women paid 59 cents to the dollar that men made. 50 years later women are still paid significantly less than men for their same work. today women earn 77 cents for every dollar men make. equal pay should not only be viewed as an issue of fairness, it is also an economic issue. the yearly gap of $8,200 that

sacramento women face could have been put to use paying off student loans. as part of a down payment for a new home. or invest for their retirement. paycheck fairness puts the money that women rightfully earned into their pockets where it belongs. that's why i support the paycheck fairness act and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, yesterday the committee on education and the work force heard testimony from health and newman services secretary, kathleen sebelius. despite mountain of facts to the contrarery, she told the committee concerns of employers have the health care law are mere speculation. i don't know who the secretary is talking to in washington, but the reality for employers out in the real world is there is no speculation when it comes

to the job crushing effect of obamacare. where i live in north carolina, obamacare is destroying jobs and forcing full-time workers to accept part-time hours, that's just the start. i recently host add field hearing in my district where i heard from a business owner who prior to obamacare was able to offer some of the best medical, dentle a. -- dental, and vision care in the area at as could of only 20% to his employees. mr. hudson: they are o now subject to higher premiums, investment taxes, and greater administrative burdens. all this will divert resources from new training, equipment, and better wages. mr. speaker, what i see are the facts and not speculation. that's why i'm adamant we need to repeal this terrible law. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the equal

pay act. this law was the very first step to closing the gender wage gap. it was also a statement about our values. that women and men deserve equal pay for equal work. but 50 years later, women continue to be devaled. equal pay is not only a woman's issue, it's a family issue. families rely on women's wages to make ends meet. and the extra $11,000 a woman would make each year if she was fairly compensated has real value. it could pay for a year and a half of child care or feed a family of four with money to spare. every dollar matters. for hardworking women and families. what's better than the equal pay act 50th anniversary? a paycheck fairness act birthday. it's time the paycheck fairness act got a vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom ohio seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. latta: mr. speaker, i rise today to address the need for reforming our courage sugar program. this policy is stunning job creation, is harming families, candy companies and food manufacturers that are forced to pay a higher cost for any product made with sugar. recent data suggests that without reform, the program puts 600,000 jobs in the sugar-using industries at risk. i became all too aware of this negative impact during a visit at a leading con effecter located in my district. headquarters in ohio, the family-owned business that has been providing consumers with candy canes and other candies since 1906. this company currently has over 00 employees but if they could purchase sugar at world prices, the employee number would be

closer to 6 hub -- 600. imagine the positive economic road that would result from sugar reform nationwide. i'm an original co-sponsor of h.r. 693, the sugar reform act. reform to the sugar program will restore fairness in the sugar market, encourage investment and spur job creation in our local communities. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to patricia newson, the first la tina to be promoted to the chief deputy in riverside county. instrumental in fostering relationships within our community, patricia has served at the riverside county sheriff's department for 24 years. patrigsa started her law enforcement career at the

detention ey center. for the last two decades she's continued to serve in a variety of roles within the riverside county sheriff's department. she now moves from her current position as the commander of the robert presley detention center to become chief deputy of the riverside county sheriff's department. always active, always actively engaged in the community, chief dev deputy newson founded life path vision, a group that works with riverside county -- riverside police foundcation to mentor youth. never seizing to help those in need, -- ceasing to help those in need, she also serves on boards and committees of a number of nonprofit organizations in the community. as a role model and mentor herself, chief deputy newson firmly believes it's everyone's responsibility to mentor youth, to be successful adults, with her unparalleled passion for service, patricia newson is a role model for us all. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday during a hearening oned education and work force committee, secretary sebelius dismissed concerns regarding the impact of the affordable care act will have on small businesses as speculation. but in my district, and all across this country, the negative impacts of this law is a sad reality. i've held field hearings in indiana, pennsylvania and most recently north carolina to hear directly from the job creators and about how they will have to cut hours and hire fewer employees bace of the affordable care act. and -- because of the affordable care act. jauvent this past sunday, my hometown paper ran an advertisement from a burger king franchise owner announcing he was being forced to close one of his stores as a result of, among other things, a law so unfriendly to business and workers it forces the business to limit hardworking americans to less hours and lower pay at

a time of high unemployment, less opportunity for people to prevail, end quotes. this entrepreneur wants to grow his business, not shrink it. but instead we're limiting his opportunities and those of tennesseans that he would employ. speculation, i hardly think. so we can and must do better. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: thank you. mr. speaker, when women succeed, our economy grows, ow communities prosper and our nation thrives and yet 50 years after president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law, some in congress seem content to law the pay gap between men and women continue. back in 1963 women earned 59 cents on average for every $1 a man took home. president kennedy called that unconscionable. meanwhile, about one in 10 mothers with their family -- is their family's primary bread winners. five decades later, the number of female bread winners has

quadrupled and yet women take home only 77 cents for $1 a man earned for the same job. congress hasn't updated the equal pay act since president kennedy signed it into law. the paycheck fairness law would adapt to a much different american workplace than what we had the in the 1960's and put us back on a pathway to pay equity in the work force. equal pay isn't a women's issue, it's a family issue, it's an economic issue, it's a community issue. and it's also an issue that congress has ignored. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the paycheck fairness act and help guarantee equal pay for equal work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we have a jobs crisis in this country. millions of americans are out of work and yet many jobs go unfulfilled. this is a special -- this is especially true among young people. part of the problem is that young americans are faced with

uncertainty when investing in college education due to government price fixing of student loan interest rates. while some in this chamber think that's a good thing, others do not. we passed a bill on that just two weeks ago. that is why house republicans passed a smarter solutions for students act. it stops student loan rates from doubling in july, fixes the student loan process long-term and takes politicses out of the business of setting interest rates by moving to a market-based system. as a member of the budget committee, i'll know that these are many of the same -- actually, the very same principles the president called for in his own budget plan. mr. rokita: we are offering the president a perfect opportunity for a true bipartisan victory and not only is it a bipartisan victory, it is a real solution to a real problem. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: on june 10,

1963, president john f. kennedy signed the bipartisan equal pay act which requires equal pay for equal work. great idea, but 50 years later women earn 77 cents for every $1 men make. a yearly gap of over $11,000. between working men and women. women of color earn even less. does anyone think that if this congress were a majority women, that this bill would still be stonewalled from even being debated in this house? and by this republican majority? we debate the paycheck fairness act right away. since most american families rely on women's wages, the pay gap means $11,000 less every year for their grocery, rent and doctor visits. and that lasts a lifetime, resulting in lower pensions and social security benefits. 50 years, a half a century is far too long for women to wait for paycheck fairness. here's a little warning.

women may not be a majority here now, but we are a majority of voters. let's pass the paycheck fairness act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, every day we talk about the need to cut spending and government waste in order to promote economic stability and grow our economy. i've introduced a bill to do just that. the save act would cut $200 billion over 10 years by eliminating the duplicative and inefficient spending within the government. this bill has already received bipartisan support. in fact, these cuts you were outlined in the president's own g.a.o. report. they include cutting $137 by eliminating duplicative cafta studies, saving taxpayers $33 billion by reducing medicaid and medicare fraud and abuse. forcing government agencies to act more like the private sector with contract bidding,

saving taxpayers $80 billion. these are commonsense and practical cuts and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the save act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable individual and prolific inventor whose pioneering research into medical imaging has helped to transform modern-day medicine. a chief scientist at general electric's global research center was recently awarded his 200th united states patent. a bench mark previously reached by only one other g.e. researcher. the inventor of the lightbulb and founder of the company's research center, thomas edison. for the past four decades, the doctor has worked at g.e. global reserve to -- research on technology to advance magnetic resonance imaging or

m.r.i. it would not be where it is today, a vital diagnostic tool used in hospitals around the world. there's no telling how many millions of people are leaving -- leading healthier lives today because of the technology that the doctor developed. i congratulate the doctor on this milestone achievement and on behalf of this body and the citizens of the 20thth congressional district of new york, i thank him for his life-long dedication to scientific research, in the service of humanity. thank you, mr. speaker, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, certainty and stability is all that business owners are asking so they can grow and create jobs. instead we had obamacare. a nightmare for people who own a business or who are trying to start up their own business but worse, it is a nightmare for

you and your family. it's not fair for you, for your kids, your grandkids. obamacare will and is cutting your wages, your hours, it may even cost you your job and it's weakening our social safety net. in the big picture, ask yourself, when it comes to your health care, who knows how to care for you and your family most? you or some stranger here in washington? obamacare is bad for business, putting three million american jobs in jeopardy and that is not speculation. secretary sebelius. it's plain and simple. the affordable care act is not affordable. it's not about your health. it's not about care. and it is not fair. mr. radel: -- mr. radel: it's not fair to our seniors, our kids, our grandkids or for you. thank you, i yield my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: over the last 50 years, women have broken barriers in business, science,

education and government. yet they today also account for half of the workers in the country. but still they earn less for equal work. in nevada, the average woman still makes only 85 cents for every $1 that men earn. a man -- amounting to a yearly gap of $6,300 between full-time working men and women. collectively nevada women are losing some $2.3 billion each year due to this pay gap. the pay gap not only harms individual women, but it hurts their families and our communities. it is an economic drag, a social calamity and a moral injustice. in a country where we strive for equal opportunity, this is simply unacceptable. that's why it's so important that we pass the paycheck fairness act. this critical piece of legislation would update and strengthen the equal pay act and help women fight wage discrimination.

the issue is simple. women should receive equal pay for equal work and the paycheck fairness act would provide the tools to reach that goal. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of h.r. 2217, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 243 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2217. the chair appoints the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, to preside over the ommittee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2217, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: creations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: mr. chairman, 9 years ago this thursday -- 69 years ago this thursday more than 9,000 allied soldiers were killed or wounded during the d-day invasion in normandy, france. that operation as well as the sacrifice of so many brave

individuals serves as a sobering reminder that freedom and security are, in fact, not free. it's this solemn commitment to both freedom and security that i respectfully present to the people's house the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill for the department of homeland ecurity. similar to our subcommittee's work over the past three fiscal years, this bill demonstrates how we can fund vital security programs and enforce the law, while also reducing discretionary spending overall. so this bill is about our security and fiscal priorities and getting them right. the president's fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for d.h.s. presents a budget for our frontline homeland security agencies. diminishing their operational work force, and undermining

mission capabilities. the end result of the president's budget proposal would undoubtedly be a less capable d.h.s. that's why our subcommittee on a bipartisan basis catastrophe to significantly improve the -- strove to significantly improve the flawed budget request to this bill to the house today. first this bill targets the very programs and systems displayed during the recent horrific attack at the boston marathon. it does this by nearly a 20% increase in the request for fema first respondant grants. substantial increases above the request and last year's level for c.d.p., targeting t.s.a. secured flight and i.c.e. visa enforcement programs, including the phase in of 1,600 additional c.d.p. officers.

doubling the department's bombing prevention program substantially increasing counter i.e.d. trades, and applying the lessons learned from our wars in iraq and afghanistan. nearly 40% increase in the program if you see something, say something. in addition, the bill restores virtually all the unjustified proposed cuts to d.h.s.'s operational programs to include restoring i.c.e., the cuts to .c.e. mandated, 34,000 detention beds, and vital investigator programs. restoring cuts to the coast guard's operational expenses, including aviation and flight hours, as well as restoring the president's truly harmful cuts to recapitalization and acquisition of cutter and aviation assets. restoring the proposed cuts to c.d.p., air, marine operation hours, and procurement, as well

as mission support functions. restoring the long-term cuts to social security staffing -- secret service staffing and financial crime investigations. and providing needs to restorations while also strongly supporting the department's disaster relief, cybersecurity, and research programs, including a full year's construction increment for the national agroand biodefense facility in kansas. this bill is also considered our nation's fiscal crisis by invoking real fiscal discipline and efficiency, including a more than $613 million, or more than 1.5% reduction below fiscal year 2013 in the department's annual budget. a 15% cut below the request to d.h.s. headquarters staffing. nearly 25% cut below the

request to departmental administrative expenses and bureaucratic overhead. the president's request to increase bureaucracy by creating new -- three new headquarters offices. termination of funding for ineffectual programs and a substantial oversight requirement ranging from withholding funds to statutory mandates to reporting requirements on everything from major acquisitions to ammunition inventories purchases and usage. mr. chairman, this bill does not represent a false choice between fiscal responsibility and security. both are urgent priorities, and both are vigorously addressed by this bill. i must note that d.h.s. did a shameful job in complying with statutory requirements enacted into law f.i. 2013. those failures are certainly

addressed in this bill. we are serious about complying -- compelling the department to both enforce the law and comply with the law. we will not tolerate further failures in this regard. i think we make clear in this bill through 50% withholdings to the department's executive offices, and 50% reductions to offices that are delaying the review and submittal of needed factual and informational requests by congress. on a final and sober note, my staff and i have been regularly talking with our dear friend and my classmate, tom cole. doing all that we can to help the good people of oklahoma and his district get back on their feet from the devastating tornado that hit the town of moore and surrounding community. so in addition to nearly $11

billion that is currently in fema covers, this bill fully supports the requirements of $6.2 billion disaster relief fund in f.y. 2014. these funds combined with our continued oversight will help ensure the money gets to those who have lost so much. mr. chairman, we send tom and his constituents our sincere condolences and wish them a speedy recovery. in closing, let me first thank ranking member price for his partnership. i sincerely thank him and his dedicated professional staff for their input and contributions to this bill. in addition let me thank thoughtful members of the body who received program submissions from 222 members and their input was critical to our oversight work over the past few months, as well as the production of this bill. i know that my staff and i made

every effort to accommodate virtually every member submission we receive, but that has only made this a stronger product. finally, i must thank distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full committee, chairman rogers and mrs. lowey. their input and support for the bill is appreciated. i sincerely believe this bill reflects our best effort to address our nation's urgent needs, security enforcement, and fiscal restraint. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. price: i rise in support of the homeland security appropriations bill for 2014 and pleased we are bringing this bill to the house floor under an open rule.

i want to commend chairman carter for the open, collaborative, and bipartisan process he has led this spring. there is a long history of bipartisan cooperation on this subcommittee that's critical for allowing us to focus on the nation's domestic security needs. the funding allocation provided to the subcommittee used closely to the overall spending picture requested by the president for the department of homeland security. but i don't believe that either number is fully adequate to provide d.h.s. with the resources it needs to help keep the nation safe. we have been able to fill a number of significant holes in the president's budget request, but this is necessitated, creating some shortfalls in other areas. i want to make clear, however, that my support of chairman carter's efforts in no way are an endorsement of the overall discretionary spending caps adopted by the majority in the house budget resolution. sequestration was intended to

be a mechanism to force the parties to come together to address our long-term fiscal challenges. it was never meant in itself to be a fool for deficit reduction -- tool for deficit reduction, and certainly never meant to be the basis for discretionary spending cap on a budget resolution. while not quite sufficient, our allocation is still better than most of the other domestic appropriations bills, which will struggle to appropriately fund critical priorities such as medical and energy research, law enforcement of the justice system, and investments in education and infrastructure. our homeland security bill is not the only bill that deals with our country's strength and security. and the allocations provided to these other subcommittees by the ryan budget will put that strength, that security at grave risk. that being said and given the low 302-b allocation this subcommittee had to work with,

i applaud the chairman and staff for addressing a number of democratic priorities, including first responders and anti-terrorism grants. as well as providing increases above the request for frontline d.h.s. employees so that they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our nation's airports, seaports, and land ports of entry, and respond to natural disasters across the country. right before last year's markup, we were reminded of the threats facing our nation when the intelligence community thwarted an attempt to place a nonmetallic improvised explosive device on an aircraft bound for the united states. this year following the terrorist attacks in boston, we are forced to confront the tragic reality that these threats remain constant. that terrorists remain determined to attack the homeland. and they will devise more and more perverse ways to kill and harm innocent people. this requires d.h.s. and the

intelligence community and local first responders to remain vigilant and strive continually to optimize their scarce resources. that's why i'm pleased this bill increases funding for critical grant programs. while once again rejecting the administration's insufficiently articulated proposal to re-engineer the grant structure or proposal that has not been authorized. specifically, the bill includes $1.5 billion for fema, state, and local grants. an increase of 35 million over the fiscal 13 appropriated level, and it keeps both fire grants and emergency performance grants level with fiscal 2013. the bill also doubles the requested funding for the office of bombing prevention toe accelerate planning, training and awareness programs to help detect and respond to i.e.d.'s and other explosive devices. equally important the bill provides a $16.9 million

increase in funding for research and development efforts that the science and technology director. when you combine this funding with what was included in the fiscal 2013 bill, final bill, we made significant progress since fiscal year 2013. providing funding for high priority research efforts and some new projects as well. the bill also provides substantial funding, $404 million, for construction of the national bioand agro defense facility. a laboratory that's essential to our ability to help prevent and respond to animal disease threats. the bill also increases funding for critical coast guard and c.b.p. air and marine acquisition, to recapitalize aging assets, and also bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure our frontline personnel can operate more effectively. improving all the administration's request on each of those fronts. i'm also pleased that the bill

provides funding for an additional 1,600 customs and border protection officials requested by the administration. and for substantially strengthened cybersecurity protective efforts. these efforts are absolutely necessary to monitor and detect intrusions to our federal networks and protect them from foreign espionage and cyberattacks. . finally i commend chairman carter for providing the requested amount for the disaster relief fund which will ensure that there are sufficient disaster relief resources moving into the coming fiscal year. and i echo the chairman's pledge of support for representative tom cole, for his constituents and the other people of oklahoma to fully address their needs. i also want to remind my colleague, however, that should emergency disaster relief funding me