reach. >> thank you, mr. vice president. >> well, you teach our children, you treat our patients, you minister to the faithful. and i want to take this opportunity to thank all of you in this home, individuals and organizations like for the commitments you've made and those who have been ahead of the curve, as most of you have been ahead of the curve. to my friend, and he really is my friend, john, i hope you needed more kids that needed to get into georgetown. they might have a shot. i told him, at least name a sidewalk after me or something. but i want to thank you, john, for the -- jack, for the efforts you made to integrate the conversations about mental health and wellness into the as culum and students undergraduates. i hope moore campuses replicate

the program you put in place. i also want to thank -- he's not here -- but my good friend gordon smith. ordon is -- and he and i served in the united states senate. we have been close friends. when he went through what is probably the most frightening and horrible prospect any parent could face of losing his , he unlike a lot of us who have -- not the same loss but loss of a child, he had the courage to relive it every day by speaking out, because make no mistake, all of you know this, every time gordon smith stands up to talk about this issue it comes home immediately.

it is not a distant memory. tractor-trailer that killed my wife is not a distant memory. every time you show up at a funeral, it is not a distant memory. and i want to publicly acknowledge his courage, the courage to take a terrible tragedy that happened to him and provide, provide help, provide help to other parents, other families so they may be spared the agony that his family endured. . i don't think it's an accident that they concluded the national public health service campaign to reduce the stigma of mental illness is part of their obligation as well. i thank them but i also thank gordon for what he's doing. [applause] in another context, although this was part of it, i met with

the representatives of the video game industry. they have agreed that they are going to engage in public health -- public certificate is viss announcements about mental health. but to all of you, the faith groups, school groups, health care groups, so many others, thank you for your commitment and your dedication to this essential work. my god lover her, stheed sayer' doing god's work. you really are. you are doing god's work. ecause what a lonely lonely, lonely, lonely feeling. i have friends who passed away, my college roommate, who was having real problems with his son with mental illness. and i'll never forget what he said to me. he said, joe -- this is a big guy. played ball together at delaware. he was a big fellow from buffalo, new york. all city, tough guy.

i'll never forget him saying to me, joe, i feel -- i'm frightened. >> we'll leave the last few minutes of these remarks by vice president biden to bring you live coverage now of the u.s. house and the rest of his comments online at c-span.org. members returning to the house chamber now to vote on the homeland security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014. live to the house floor. of the senate on june 6, 2013, at 9:32 a.m., that the senate agreed to senate resolution 161. signed sincerely, karen l.a. haas. the speaker pro tempore: 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 the further consideration of h.r. 2217. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly esume the chair?

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2217 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the bill had been read through page 93, line 11. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment by mr. ben ray lujan of new mexico, amendment by mr. king of iowa, amendment by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. the gentleman from new mexico, mr. ben ray lujan, of which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yinse prevailed by voice vote. -- ayes prevailed by voice

vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. ben ray lujan of new mexico. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 287. the nays are 136.

he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 223.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 224. the nays are 201. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from tennessee,

mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: nays are 225. he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. carter: i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee risings. - rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having under consideration h.r. 2217 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2217, and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. with the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and the bill as amended do pass. under house resolution 243, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole. if not, the chair will poll them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. he amendments are adopted. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for ther purposes. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. murphy of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2217 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 2, line 17, after the -ollar amount insert- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the house will come to order, please take your conversations off the floor. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will be amended and immediately proceed to final passage. mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman carter and the ranking member price for working together truly in a bipartisan manner on the underlying legislation. with this bill we have shown

that we can put partisanship aside and do what's right for the american people. providing the necessary funding for the department of homeland security to keep our nation safe from attacks, as well as responding to natural disasters. just as we have the responsibility to support important work that homeland security does, we also have the responsibility to make sure we are spending funds -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he house will be in order. mr. murphy: we also have the responsibility to spend funds where they are most needed. after witnessing the tragedies caused by recent tornadoes in moore, oklahoma, wildfires in california and new mexico, and the northeast still recovering from superstorm santy -- sandy, we are reminded that disasters can strike in any community. having lived in florida my entire life, i experienced firsthand the impact these disasters can have, especially when local and state governments are not on the same page as the

federal government. and adequately preparing for and responding to extreme weather. as we debate today, florida and the eastern coast is preparing to deal with the potentially devastating effects of tropical storm andrea. with the start of what is predicted to be an active tornado and hurricane season, it is especially important for congress to act. that is why this week i announced the formation of a bipartisan disaster relief caucus to work toward improving the effectiveness of disaster preparedness and response efforts. it is vital that we work to make disaster preparedness efforts more efficient across all levels of government. my amendment would take $2.5 million from the department's administrative operating expenses to put toward the predisaster mitigation program. this important program will assist state and local governments in better preparing for natural disasters. saving american lives and communities. furthermore, better preparedness

efforts reduce the cost of disaster response and clean up efforts. also saving american taxpayer dollars. additionally, it wasn't two months having passed since the tragedy at the boston marathon -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. murphy: we must also recommit ourselves to funding anti-terrorism efforts. my amendment would provide a 5% increase in funding to train emergency responders on the federal, state, and local level so they can be better prepared for events and respond to domestic attacks. again, this funding is fully offset from the department administrative operating expenses. my amendment should have the full support of the house and i once again want to point out that it will not kill the underlying legislation. it would simply shift spending from administrative operations to invest in natural disaster preparedness and anti-terrorism efforts. as we continue to tighten our

belts in washington, i think we can all agree that these programs are more vital use of resources than administrative expenses. natural disasters impact all americans. as to acts of terrorism. these are two areas that should never get caught up in partisan bickering. we must stand united to prevent future trangdies -- tragedies, and acts of terrorism. anyone who supports the underlying legislation has no reason not to also support this amendment to spend smarter to better protect our nation. mr. speaker, my amendment is an opportunity to show the american people that congress is willing to work together to put the safety and well-being of the american people first. i hope to see the same bipartisan support for my amendment as we have seen for the underlying legislation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of this amendment. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. is the gentleman from texas opposed to the motion?

mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: mr. speaker, this is a good bill. it's a strong bill. this bill focuses on securing the homeland, protecting our citizens against terrorist acts like the one that we experienced in boston, and we talked about it for the last three days. mr. speaker, this motion is unnecessary. this bill specifically addresses the events in boston by the following. adding an additional 1,600 c.d.p. officers, increasing funding for watch listing for the third year in a row. increasing visa enforcement. increasing first responder grants by $400 million for a total of $2.5 billion, more than adequate funding to help equip and train first responders. doubling the amount for bomb prevention. and the bill already has more

than $30 million in predisaster mitigation grants. this bill was constructed in a bipartisan fashion. having unanimous support at the subcommittee and committee levels. and has earned praise from both sides of the aisle here on the house floor. this bill is not contentiousp and fulfills one of the most basic duties of the members of congress. keeping our nation safe. let's not focus on politics today, let's focus on constitutional responsibility to provide for safety for all who live in our wonderful country. mr. speaker, it's time to apply the lessons learned from recent terrorist attacks, reject this flawed motion, and vote on this important bill. vote yes on the important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. murphy: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 196 and the nays are 226. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill under clause 10 of rule 20. the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245 and he nays are 182. the bill is passed.

without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that mr. blumenauer be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 1249. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. before yielding to my friend for the schedule, however, i would like to join, i know, with all of our colleagues wishing him a happy birthday. it is the majority leader's irthday today. because i don't want him to retaliate i'm not going to mention which birthday it is, but i want to congratulate him and wish him the very best. we'll have a birthday colloquy today. i thank him for his leadership

and yield to him the time to explain our schedule for the week to come. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman, my friend from maryland, for those kind birthday wishes. yes, it is my 50th birthday, and i have been saying all day my wife and i are empty nesters now, it's about time i'm 50. i do thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, would tell the gentleman i'll be glad to take him up on a kinder and gentler colloquy for the birthday. i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, on monday, the house will meet in pro forma session at 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected. tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are

expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules. a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 1910, the national defense authorization act. chairman buck mckeon and his committee once again will bring a bipartisan bill to the floor to ensure that our men and women in the armed services have the tools and resources necessary to protect the freedoms that all of us enjoy here at home. again, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. we have started the appropriations process. e did two bills this week. they were relatively bipartisan in nature. i regret, of course, that the adoption of the king amendment, which we thought was a very bad policy precluded us from voting

for a bill that we otherwise would have voted for. that we failed to reach a bipartisan agreement on. i think there were some on your side who did not want the king amendment offered, which includes any discretion of prosecutors, which i think is bad as general policy. certainly bad relates to the dreamers. but i would hope that as we move forward on the appropriation bills that we would be able to do those as we did the military construction and veterans bill which was passed almost with overwhelming vote on both sides of the aisle. one of the problems, mr. leader, is going to be the amount of dollars that have been made available to the nine remaining bills, perhaps agriculture, so eight remaining bills after we do milcon, homeland security

which essentially were done at the agreed upon levels of the budget control act. similar to what the senate is marking their bills to. i'm not sure what the defense number's going to be, but our fear is an concern is that these bills will be marked so that substantial dollars that would otherwise been available to other subcommittees will not be available because in effect we front-loaded spending on the first three bills. the ryan budget, as the gentleman knows, is almost $100 billion less than the agreement of august of 2011 on how much dollars would be available for priorities on the discretionary side of our budget. can the gentleman give me any information with reference to whether or not we may still be

going to a budget conversation -- conference, where we could reach elimination of the ski questionser and a new -- sequester and a new number that could be agreed upon between the senate and house as we always have to do, whether it's a budget or not, you have to agree on the numbers, and we are about $100 billion apart, that has to -- not breached but overcome if we are going to pass bills. can the gentleman give me any thoughts whether or not we are going to go to conference? and the motion to go to conference, or appoint conferees? i yield. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. i understand his concerns. i think all of us have concerns about the way spending reductions are implemented on the sequester. as the gentleman knows, we in the majority have continued to

try and advocate. we put proposals forward to accomplish the spending reductions and reforms in a smarter way. i think both of us, mr. speaker, would agree there are much smarter ways for that to happen. unfortunately it is the law, and unless we are able to agree and in fact again the house has posited its formula for better reductions in spending, the white house, senate refused to go along. so sequester is the law. as the gentleman knows 302-b's are set according to the post sequester numbers. that is our intention, mr. speaker, to abide by the law with the sequester in place. i would respond to the gentleman's inquiry about budget conference, and the gentleman knows as i have said before, chairman ryan stands ready to work with senator murray on

drawing an outline and structure for the way a conference would proceed. but unfortunately there can be even no discussion on that point because there is an insistence on the part of the senate and the white house that any budget onference discussion include discussion of tax increases. we have said repeatedly we can't be raising taxes every other month, every six months in this town. that there was a significant increase in taxes, impact on working americans this year because of the fiscal cliff. and we remain committed to addressing the problem of the budget, but will not do so while there is an insistence that a rerequisite is raising taxes. i yield back. mr. hoyer: in other words, i think the gentleman said there

is not going to be a conference because there is disagreement on what the result of that conference will be? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman, we would like to have agreement that we can begin discussion of a fiscally sane path to balancing our budget. as the gentleman knows, mr. speaker, our conference has made its stand saying we want to balance the budget. we want to promote spending reductions and reforms that get us there in 10 years. and in that vain we would like to see that it's not punishing the american taxpayer the way that we get there as far as the budgeteers are concerned here in washington. it's growing our economy. it's reforming the kinds of things that are necessary to take care of those unfunded liabilities at the federal level. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i would say that we have indicated on a number of occasions we would love to see

some growing the economy legislation on the floor. jobs bills on the floor. bills that the administration and republicans and economists on both sides would say would grow the economy. we haven't seen those, and we re concerned about that. does the gentleman believe -- first of all, let me make the observation that we don't believe the first three bills you are bringing out, you brought out two, defense bills, are being brought out at the ryan budget levels. in fact, they are being brought up substantially above the ryan budget levels, if in fact we proceed equal distribution under 302-b on the allocations of discretionary money. we don't share your view on the two bills we voted on. two bills we voted on have been at the senate level.

essentially. and -- which is why they were relatively bipartisan. not only was the senate level, it was at the level that we agreed to in 2011, august of 2011, would in fact be the discretionary number for fiscal year 2014. let me ask you something. there's not anything on the schedule with reference to the debt limit. the debt limit, as the gentleman knows, the debt limit was extended until may 19. that is now three weeks past. and we have not dealt with a debt limit. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any plan to deal with the debt limit extension? the gentleman and i agree must be done if we are not going to destabilize the economy and grow the economy. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. to his first point about jobs bills, mr. speaker, we have remained committed in the house, the majority, to doing all we can to help every american in

terms of a brighter future and that is a path to a better job, better career. we brought forward the skills act. something that is a bipartisan commitment and should have been a lot more so on this floor in trying to streamline work force training programs to help those that are unemployed. we want to help the unemployed get into a job. the federal work force training program is a mess. it's 50 programs. very difficult for unemployed people to get the training and skills they need to get a job. unfortunately that wasn't met with a lot of bipartisan reception. secondly, we just voted on the keystone x.l. pipeline bill. a known proposal to create tens of thousands of jobs, much less contribute to america's energy security and independence. as well as competitiveness. which means more jobs, more capital flowing into america. we also passed without any bipartisan support the working

family flexibility act. looking to those struggling moms and dads who are working. the fact that 50% of our work force comes from dual income households, many with kids. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. members, please remove your conversations from the floor. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. working families flexibility act. it addressed the very struggles that working facts have in trying to make their life work. we couldn't get bipartisan support on that. and then i would say to the gentleman, we remain committed to making the future brighter through offering more opportunity to all people. our solutions that come from

conservatives in the house majority, we believe our solutions can work for everyone. the gentleman knows, he and i have met on his make it in america agenda, there are things that we have in common. but unfortunately we can't see a way to having bipartisan votes. so i remain committed to working with the gentleman on his agenda and i know the spirit in which he approaches his obligations to his constituents and his caucus and know that hopefully can get back on track toward that end. now, towards the question secondly about budget levels and writing the bills, i would say to the gentleman, that we have drafted the appropriations bills, marked them up, along with his caucus. nd would say that they reflect our priorities. and obviously our priorities are going to differ from the members on his side. the trick is to try and see where we can work toward a

commonality. and lastly, to the debt limit, yes, we remain very concerned about that. hopefully we can all work together and come up with a way that we can adopt a plan that will manage down the debt and deficit and allow us to reach a balance in the federal level within 10 years, enacting the necessary reforms to the programs that we know are disproportionately causing the deficit, without disproportionately continuing to hit the discretionary side when we know the mandatory side provides most of the impetus for growth. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would say that he mentioned two bills that -- with reference to the jobs skill act. unfortunately the skills act suffered from the same thing the homeland security act just today suffered from, as the gentleman knows.

contrary to what we could have done on a bipartisan basis in a skills act, diversity, small number was inserted into that bill reducing diversity visas to this country. which was highly offensive to saw many americans who that as a direct attack on their ability to get family members to come to this country , particularly from africa and the caribbean. and it was well known on your side that if that was put in it was going to undermine our ability to have a bipartisan agreement. the same occurred to the homeland security. the gentleman knew full well that the inclusion of the king amendment, which we felt was a very negative amendment and put dreamers in particular at risk, but whether or not that was the

case undermines very, very . bstantially -- excuse me i was incorrect, the staff corrects me. tfls the stems bill thats of -- it was the stems bill that i was talking about. you did not mention that bill. but the point is the same. that in moving ahead on a bipartisan fashion, the committee did come out with a bipartisan bill on homeland security. you're absolutely correct. and mr. price, the chairman, was prepared to vote for that. and he was going to get the caucus to vote for it and we were going to vote for it. until, with very few exceptions, your caucus, your side of the aisle voted overwhelmingly to put in a piece of -- an amendment which you knew would undermine the bipartisanship that had been arrived at by the committee. nd that's unfortunate.

the gentleman, ironically from our perspective, i tell my friend with great respect, we think the family flexibility act was the family income reduction act. we think what it said to an awful lot of working people, you're not going to get paid overtime. if your colleague will work for free and get comp time at some point in time that the employer decides, we're not going to pay overtime. so you're right. we respectfully disagree. we as i said think that was the family income reduction act. families are already struggling, middle-income families' income has been stuck in the mud and we think that exacerbated it further. and very frankly, as the gentleman knows, that was a bill that was offered some years ago with very substantial opposition and didn't become law, as this one's not going to become law. but in any event, let me close

with this question, there are three bills which are being marked up, maybe ag was marked up or is going to be marked up soon. does the gentleman expect that all 12 appropriation bills will be brought to the floor? he talks about priorities. our priorities are different. although ironically the gentleman has expressed in his memos and in his agenda that he's announced, a desire to focus research on biomedical research to keep americans healthier. children and others. ironically the 302-b that he alked about earlier suggests over -- to be exact, a 26% cut in the bill that funds n.i.h. and that's going to result in a very substantial reduction in basic biomedical research at n.i.h. and the leaders of n.i.h. have made that very

clear. that not only that bill, but the president's sequester is undermining their ability to conduct biomedical research. and i know the gentleman feels strongly about that, as i do. and let me ask him, do you think that bill's going to be brought to the floor? it was not brought to even the full committee last year. much less to the floor. -- much less to the floor last year. therefore no one had the opportunity to have a vote on those priorities. can the gentleman tell me whether he thinks those nine remaining bills will be brought to the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. first of all, it is our intent to continue to work through the appropriations process and bring all the bills to the floor. that is correct. i would say furthermore to the impact n, as far as the of the sequester and 302-b's on a specific bill versus a piece of that bill, meaning the

n.i.h. research piece, as the gentleman knows, legislating, especially in times of fiscal stress, is about prioritizing. and the gentleman correctly states that i'm very much in favor of making a priority out of federal research and development. and i'm convinced that basic research is needed to allow us to continue to advance the breakthroughs in science that not only help heal people and cure disease but ultimately can help us bring down health care costs which is the number one issue that's aggravating our deficit. so, i'm glad to hear the gentleman shares that priority. i know he does. but, it doesn't mean necessarily that because we are going to commit ourselves to balancing this budget that we cannot share that priority. and i hope the gentleman can share with us the import of that priority and support what it is we're trying to do in the

area of research. making sure that we can reduce than ess priorities spending. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i always look forward to seeing the health labor bill on the floor and see how he comes to those priorities because i think it's very important. before i close, i think he's left the floor, but i do want to mention today is the day on which john dingell of michigan becomes the longest-serving member of congress in the history of the congress. since 1789. he's one of the great legislate ors with whom -- legislators with whom many of us have served. i know next week we will be -- we will be having an opportunitien to the floor to have all members or many of the members participate in recognizing his service. my staff tells me maybe we're going to do it tomorrow, not next week. but most members will be here

next week and expect they'll be saying something at that time as well. i know the majority leader joins me in congratulating our colleague and our friend, john dingell, on his extraordinary service to not only the congress of the united states, but to the american people. and, mr. speaker, unless the majority leader wants to say something further -- mr. cantor: i would just join the gentleman, mr. speaker, in congratulating mr. dingell for an incredible, first of all, milestone and i know he will continue in that service to the people of the great state of michigan. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 3:00 p.m. on monday, june 10, 2013.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? seek recognition? >> i just need one minute, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed -- co-sponsor of h. h.j.resolution 43. my name was incorrectly added to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair is prepared to entertain requests for one-minute speeches. and for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request 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. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about a bill that's going to be on the house floor here in a couple of weeks. it should be certainly of interest to every man, woman and child in this country. because we all shake hands with a armer at least three times day. breakfast, lunch and dinner. and also it's relevant to my home state, the keystone state of pennsylvania, as agriculture's the number one industry in pennsylvania. some folks would be surprised to hear that. but the fact is, we will have the farm bill before us. i'm proud to be a member of the agriculture committee. we have worked long and hard on this farm bill. we have made some great improvements. we've eliminated many of the subsidies that have kind of clouded the farm bill, in my opinion, for decades. and we've moved towards a more free market risk-management approach. protecting our farmers, providing them some access to crop insurance and dairy insurance, to protect against the weather. agriculture is probably one of the most vulnerable parts --

vulnerable industries when it comes to all extremes of weather. the farm bill also, i'm proud to say, assures that every man, woman and child in this country will have access to nutrition. every eligible -- income-eligible man, woman and child. because also the house version, it shores some reforms to stop the fraud and abuse that has run rampant with the farm bill. so i encourage my colleagues to support the farm bill when it comes to the floor in the weeks ahead. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to join many of my colleagues who came to the floor yesterday to recognize that this coming monday, june 10, is the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act being signed

into law. with that said, even after 50 years, we're still waging the same battle for women. the historic anniversary is a reminder that there's much work to be done to close the wage gap. equal pay for equal work is about fairness for women and families and dollars and common sense. for working mothers who have to put food on the table and the retired women whose income is tied to their former salary, the wage gap means real dollars. in south florida, if the wage gap were eliminated, a working woman would have enough money for 51 more weeks of food, three months of mortgage and utility payments or five months of rent or more than 1,600 additional gallons of gas. mr. speaker, whether you serve customers in a retail or argue cases before the highest court,

you have a right to be treated with fairness and dignity. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: 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, the seas were high, sea sickness was rampant. the sky was gloomy and dark, and the rain was blinding hard. the sun was hidden from the beaches below as ,000 g.i.'s with thousands of our allies starred landing sites called utah, omaha and others. the average age of the american soldier was 20. 2,500 of them died on the first day. it was june 6, 1944. it was d-day in world war ii.

it was a noble cause, free europe from the nazis. but today the boot print, the red crimson beaches of blood of u.s. sold are -- soldier are gone. the sea is calm and peaceful as if it never happened. but at the top of the cliffs of white y, france, 9,387 crosses and stars of david of the american fallen shine as an eternal memory that here on this spot the americans fought and gave all. they came, they died, they liberated. we remember they were soldiers once. for the worst casualty of war is to be forgotten. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas 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. doggett: mr. speaker, i rise in support of young dreamers. young people brought as children without proper documentation to this country. young people willing to work hard to share the american dream. young people who have so much to offer america. today 220 house republicans said no to their dream by voting to terminate the program that allows them to stay legally. these republicans by their votes said no to an essential element of comprehensive immigration reform at the very time the senate is about to take up that measure. to those republicans who say no we can't, we need more and more americans who insist, yes, we can. when we harness the energy of these youth, when we reform our immigration laws in a comprehensive way, we will create an america as good as

their dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on sunday, many families across minnesota and across the country took the time to recognize national cancer survivor day. last year more than 28,000 minnesotans were diagnosed with cancerment while there is hardly anyone who doesn't know a loved one or a friend who suffered from cancer, the good news is that 13.7 million americans have won their battle against this terrible disease. mr. paulsen: one such organization working to ensure those struggling with cancer do not face it alone is the new guilders club that opened up in minnetonka, minnesota, recently. the american cancer society now setting aggressive goals for the reduction of cancer. prevention and early detection are key to reaching these goals. based on advances and medical innovation, it's estimated in

the next 10 years millions more americans will have a chance at life after cancer. mr. speaker, let's celebrate with those that have won their fight as they offer hope that all cancer patients may someday be able to proudly say that they, too, are cancer survivors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back -- yields his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: some years ago many of us heard of a tsunami. as we approach this weekend of congratulation for our wonderful graduates, we should tell them this is the best and the greatest time of their life. but it is important for members of congress to recognize that we have a task of graduating to do. we must graduate past sequestration and eliminate it, for it is a tsunami against our young people. we have to graduate or pass this horrific pending devastation of

an increase in the student loan interest rates, where it will go from 3.4% to .8. that's a tsunami against our young people. then we must turn back the clock on an amendment that says that those who came as youngsters through no fault of their own, who are now graduating in places around america, high schools and colleges, yes, immigrant children who are undocumented, who want to give back to this nation, pay their taxes, work, get a work certificate, and give back to those who no longer can work, a tsunami has just come against them. we have to end this stand for our children. congratulations 2013 graduates as i go home to their graduation i want to give them a gift that america really stands for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> 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. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the scandals embroiling the white house are the result of a culture of contempt for the law that we have seen since the beginning of the obama administration. over the past four years, president obama has demonstrated that dedication to ideology and politics to the exclusion of the rule of law and effectively working to get this economy booming again. mr. rothfus: because of this administration's agenda driven policies, it is now more difficult for companies in western pennsylvania to grow and hire additional staff. obamacare is raising costs, has discouraged hiring, and threatens access to quality health care. regulations strangling the financial sector are limiting opportunities for small businesses to add jobs. just last week, we learned that 134 hardworking employees of a

coal company in western pennsylvania were laid off. they can thank president obama and his war on coal for altering the market for one of america's most valuable and abundant resources. president obama and his administration need to stop their big government policies, and instead we need to do all we can to get the jobs back to the american people and around the nation. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, 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. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i recently met up with some future leaders in the district i represent who are members of the navy junior rotc. they won first place this year at the texas state jrotc competition and went on to win all service grand national champion in daytona, florida. that's right, national champion. before they won nationals, i

went to their school to congratulate them on their regional win, you know what? i wished them good luck on their upcoming national competition and sure enough their skills stand out and they won. mr. farenthold: they said the other teams were really strong but once again they won a national championship. this outstanding group of young men and women led by commander salise who started the unit in 1993, a group of winners. at narblets aside from the grand national championship, they won first place in armed duel, de mille tarized armed commander, demilitarized inspection and second place in unarmed guard. congratulations to the young men and women of the njrotc. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> 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, today i rise to recognize two of america's finest heroes.

mr. yoder: i was satened to learn of the death of 23-year-old second lieutenantcieson. he graduate interested blue bell west high school, a suburb of the third district which i represent. he was assigned to the first battalion, 506th infantry regiment, 101st airborne division as an assistant operations officer out of fort campbell, kentucky. deployed to afghanistan with less than a year of active duty, along with a special list from pan in a, oklahoma, were killed on monday by a suicide vehicle born i am improvised device. with the death, we are once again reminded that freedom is not free. as americans we owe a debt of gratitude to these brave men that we simply cannot repay. mr. speaker, second lieutenantcieson and specialist pierce will forever known as patriots and heroes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair lays before the house he following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. thompson of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. smith: thank you very much. mr. speaker, there are kermit gosnells all over america today inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on young children, but excruciating pain as well. many americans, including some who self-identify as pro-choice, were shocked and dismayed by the gosnell expose and trial. perhaps the decades long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it difficult

to see and understand a disturbing reality. even after 40 years of abortion on demand, over 5050 million dead babies and millions of wounded mothers, many until gosnell somehow construed abortion as victimless. that has changed. there are two victims, mr. speaker, in every abortion. the mother and her unborn child. three if twins are involved. the brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies, euphemistically called snipping by dr. gosnell, has finally away the facade of the billion dollar abortion industry. like gosnell, abortionists all over america decapitate, dismember, and chemically poison babies to debt each and every year. that's what they do. americans are connecting the dots and ask whether what gosnell did is really any

different than what all the other abortionists do. and the answer is, no. it's not different. a d and e abortion, described here, a common method after 14 months, is a gruesome, pain filled act of violence that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child. and that's what they call choice . that is what they call safe and legal abortion. mr. speaker, the pain unborn child protection act, offered by congressman trent franks, and co-sponsored by several congress women and men, including me, is a modest but absolutely necessary attempt to at least protect some babies, say those who are 20 weeks old and pain capable, from having to suffer and die a painful death from

abortion. on may 23, chairman trent franks convened hearing in the judiciary committee constitution and civil justice subcommittee on his legislation. the bill, h.r. 1797, entitled the pain capable unborn child protection act, was approved by the subcommittee on june 4 and now moves to the full committee and hopefully soon to the full house. the testimony of several witnesses, mr. speaker, i would respectfully submit is a must read for anyone who cares about human rights or anyone who cares about women and children. e witness, dr. anthony lebitano, a former abortionist who testified he performed approximately 1,200 abortions over 100 of them were second trimester abortions like this d and e procedure described here in this graph. he said, and i quote him,

imagine if you can you are a pro-choice physician gineologist like i once was. your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. if you can see her baby, which is quite easy on an ultrasond, she would be as long as your hand, from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump, not counting the legs. your patient has been feeling her baby kick for at least a month. or more. but now she is asleep on an operating table. he continued with suction of the amniotic fluid. after that is completed you look for what is called a clamp. this is about 13 inches long and made of stainless steel. at the business end are located jaws, about 2 1/2 inches long, and about 3/4 of an inch thick. this is what he's talking about right here. this is for grafting and

crushing tissue. when it gets hold of something, it does not let go. a second trimester d and e abortion is a blind procedure. picture yourself, the baby can be in any orientation, he goes on, or position inside the uterus. picture yourself reaching in with the clamp and grasping anything you can. also be careful not to punctuate the walls. once you've grasped something inside, this doctor, former abortionist, goes on to say, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard. pull really hard. you feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. reach in again and grab whatever you can. set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length.

reach in again and again and that clamp and tear out the spine, the sbess tins, the heart and the lungs. the doctor goes on to say that the toughest part of the abortion is extracting the baby's head. the head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free-floating inside of the cavity. be sure you have a hold of it. if the clamp is spread as far as your fingers will allow. you will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and you see a white gentlemen lat news to material coming through the cervix. that is the baby's brains, this abortionist goes on to say. you can then extract the skull in pieces. many times, he went on in his testimony before trent franks' subcommittee, many times a little face will come out and

stare back at you. congratulations, you have just successfully performed a second trimester d and e abortion. you've just affirmed the right to choose. if you refuse to believe this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again. it does. another witness, mr. speaker, a wreckagestered nurse, spoke of appalling store -- a registered nurse, spoke of appalling stories of abortion survivors and the pain, the pain, the excruciating pain that they suffer when they are being aborted. she pointed out that when she testified before the committee back in 2001, it was her experience as a registered nurse, in the labor and delivery department at christ hospital in oak lawn, illinois, where she discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved, shelved, put on a shelf, to die in the

department's soiled utility closet. indeed, this nurse went on to say at the hearing, i was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died. a 21 to 2-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had down syndrome. since then other appalling stories of abortion survivors either being abandoned or killed have tripled out. in -- trickled out. in 2005 a mother delivered a 23-week-old baby in the toilet at a clinic in orlando, florida. and was shocked to see this little guy move. abortion staff not only refused help, but turned away paramedics who a friend notified by calling 911. the woman could do no more than helplessly sitting on the floor, rocking and singing to her baby for 11 minutes until that infant died.

in 2006, a woman delivered her 22-week-old baby boy on a recliner at a diagnostic center in florida. when he began breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag still alive. the cur mitt gosnell case -- kermit gosnell case provides more evidence that the line between abortions have become blurred. this abortionist was convicted only last week. that's what she was talking when she testified, of three counts of first-degree murder. and also last week, as she went on to say, came yet another revelation and photos from three former employees who alleged that abortionist douglas carpen in houston, texas, routinely kills babies after they are born by puncturing the soft spot at the

top of the head or impaling the stomach a sharp instrument, twisting off the head or puncturing the throat with his finger. mr. speaker, if that's not child abuse in its most extreme form, i don't know what it is. it is easy to be horrified, she went on in her testimony, to say, this nurse, by heartwrench stories such as these, and to imagine the torture abortion survivors endure as they're being killed. but it is somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age being tortured as they are killed by similar methods. today premature babies are routinely given pain relief, who are born at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions. even the world health organization goes to so far as preemies getting

simple heal pricks for a couple of drops of blood. likewise, prenatal surgery is becoming commonplace and along with it, anesthesia for babies being operated on even in the middle of pregnancy. meanwhile, babies of identical age are being torn apart like this d and e abortion, with no pain relief whatsoever. and again, they suffer and they suffer horribly. it must be that some people think that the uterus provides a firewall against fetal pain. or that babies marked for abortion are somehow numb while their wanted counterparts aren't. they're not numb. they feel every single bit of killing as -- whether it's the clamp or any other instrument that's being used to dismember or to decapitate. she concludes by saying, this thinking is better suited to the middle ageness that for

modern medicine -- ages than for model ages. mr. speaker, today there is documentation that unborn children experience serious pain from at least the 20th week and most likely even before that. when it comes to pain, all of us, all of us go through great lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. no one, none of us want to ever die a painful death. unborn children deserve no less. i yield to the prime sponsor of this very important legislation , trent franks, the chairman of the committee, and like i said, he author of the bill. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i don't often do this, but i'm going to step away from my prepared remarks just for a moment and express a sincere gratitude to

congressman chris smith. mr. speaker, years ago when i came to washington the very first time, it was on a weekend and i couldn't come here and visit the congress but i came to the congressional halls of where their offices were and there were two offices that i visited. one was the late henry hyde, one of the greatest human beings to ever sit in this place. and the other was to chris smith. and i just have to say to you, i know it embarrasses him terribly, but this is my heart. i believe this man to be truly one of the greatest heroes in this congress. all the 30-plus years that he's been here he has given everything he had to protect little children that couldn't vote for it him. nd i'm just convinced that someone's going to look him in the eyes one day when he crosses over that threshold and say, well done.

and i'm just grateful that we have men like that here. mr. speaker, daniel webster once said, hold on, my friends, to the constitution. and to the republic for which it stands. for miracles do not cluster and america's a miracle, mr. speaker. for miracles do not cluster. and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. so hold on to the constitution, for if the american constitution should fall there will be anarchy throughout the world. our founding fathers wrote the words of our constitution down for us because they didn't want us to forget their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately undermine or destroy it. this has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents or agreements or declarations or constitutions in the first place.

to preserve their original meaning and intent. mr. speaker, it really causes us to ask ourselves the question, why was all of this effort made? why are we really here in this chamber? and i would suggest to you that f we simply avail of ourselves of the most cursory glance at the founding fathers, we are all here to protect the lives of americans and their constitutional rights. and protecting the lives of americans and their constitutional rights is the reason congress exists in the first place. the phrases in the fifth and 14th amendments capps late our entire constitutional -- cap sue late our entire constitution when they say that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. it's that simple. those words are a crystal-clear

reflection of our constitution and the proclamation that the declaration of independence put forward to all of us when it declared that all men, all men, and i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, that's all little babies, too, are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. those words are the essence of america and our commitment to them for more than two centuries has set america apart as the flagship of human freedom in the world. it has made us the superpower of this planet. and yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have strayed from those foundational words. our own united states supreme court did exactly that, mr. speaker, when they ruled that millions of men, women and children were not persons under the constitution because their skin was the wrong color.

it took a horrible civil war and the deaths of over 600,000 americans to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. and we saw that same arrogance in 1973 when the supreme court said the unborn child was not a person under the constitution. and we have since witnessed the silent deaths of now over 55 million innocent little boys and baby girls who died without the protection of the constitution, the constitution, the protection that the constitution gave them and without the protection this congress should have had the courage to defend. mr. speaker, the recent trial of kermit gosnell has played an instrumental role in exposing late-term abortions for what they really are, relocated infant side. kermit gosnell is this now famous late-term abortionist convicted of murder in part for using scissors to cut the spinal cords of numerous little babies who had survived

abortion attempts. one of his employees said that in one case, that there was this little baby that had been so damaged by the process that it no longer had eyes or a mouth but she could hear him screeching and making this sound like a little alien. i know so sometimes, mr. speaker, -- i know sometimes, mr. speaker, we deliberately try to hide those things from our minds. i know i do. but once in a while it's important just to think on the life of this one little child that was only in this world outside the womb for a few minutes and found nothing but horror and suffering, not knowing why, not knowing what the purpose or the reason was, and no one was there. i just have to say to you, mr. speaker, if that isn't wrong then we can be a solve ourselves forever -- absolve

ourselves forever because nothing is wrong. had kermit gosnell done the same thing mere moments before when that little baby was still inside the womb, in many states in this union, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it would have been entirely legal. now, we've seen similarly other late-term abortions across this country exposed for such inexre henceably barbaric -- inexre henceably bar, -- incomprehensively barbaric abortions. abortion clinic employees in arizona explained to a woman seeking an abortion in 24 weeks that, quote, they are sometimes alive, yeah, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the baby will come out whole. douglas carpen in texas has been accused of four separate employees -- by four separate

employees of killing three to four born-alive babies per day by either cutting their spinal cords, forcing instruments in their soft spots on their heads or twisting their heads off, completely off of their necks with his bare hands. very simply, mr. speaker, the public is beginning to learn that there are scores of other kermit gosnells out there. he was not an abberation. you know one of the saddest things that we must not miss here is that as evil as this man was, and the horrible things that he did, unfortunately, mr. speaker, they are not uncommon in merica. and because of this americans are beginning to realize that we are bigger than abortion on demand and that 55 million dead children are enough. we are beginning to ask the real question, does abortion take the life of a child? and, mr. speaker, that is the question that i would put

before all of my colleagues and anyone that hears the sound of ration put aside the nationalization, does abortion take the life of a child? if it does not, i am willing to walk out of here and never mention this subject again. but if abortion really does kill a little baby, if it really does, then those either sitting here in the sea of freedom, in the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of humanity, also find ourselves standing in the midst of the great human genocide in the history of the world. and throughout america's history, the hearts of the american people have always been moved with compassion when hey discover a there aretofore hidden class of victims. -- thwart for hidden class of victims.

it finally becomes clear in their mind, america changes their heart, and i would submit to you, mr. speaker, america is on the cusp of another such realization and i feel if we fail to respond this time because after this, after kermit gosnell, no excuse remains. we have seen the worst, and if we do not respond, then we will slide into that smarian darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and where the survival of the fittest has prevailed over humanity and it must not happen on our watch in this generation. medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth have advanced dramatically and it incontrowvertably demonstrates that unborn children do experience pain. the single greatest hurdle to h.r. 3803 has always been the opponent's denial that unborn

babies feel pain at all, as if somehow the ability of pain magically develops as the child canal. hrough the birth it might have found excuse in earlier airas of human history, but the data available is inrefuteable. unborn children have the capacity to experience pain at least by 20 weeks and as congressman smith said, very likely substantially earlier. the information, mr. speaker, is at www. doctorsonfetalpain.org. i would sincerely recommend to anyone in this chamber that is interested to really know the truth to go there and find out for themselves. rather than to be -- have their understanding submitted in some earlier time when science is still believed in spontaneous

generation and that the earth was flat. that is the invincible ignorance sometimes that we find ourselves trying to break through on this civil rights issue of our time. most americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions in america every year or that's more than 20 -- sorry -- more than 325 late-term abortions every day in america. and mr. speaker, i believe we're better than that. we're better than 325 late-term abortions every day in this country. i believe that we're better than dismembering babies who can feel pain at every agonizing moment. and i sincerely hope that we can at the very least come together to agree that we can draw a line in the sand at that point. that we can agree that knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they've developed to the point where

they can feel excruciating pain leading up to their endeserved deaths, it belies everything that america is told to be. this is not who we are. mr. speaker, what we're doing to babies is real. it is bar barrack in the purest sense -- barbaric in the purest sense of the word. it is already victimized millions of pain capable babies since the supreme court gave abortion on demand on that tragic day in 1973. thomas jefferson said the care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. and ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of innocent unborn children does not liberate their mothers. it leaves their mothers oftentimes with the brokenness and emotional consequences without anyone there to really

recognize what they have dealt with. it is not the cause for which those lying out under the white stones at arlington national cemetery died. and mr. speaker, it is not good government. abraham lincoln called upon all of us to remember america's founding fathers and said their enlightening belief -- their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into this world to be trautened on or degraded or imbruted by its fellows. he reminded those he called prosperity, those, us, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up a doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that their prosperity, that is us, ladies and gentlemen, their prosperity might look up again to the declaration of independence and take courage

to renew the battle which their fathers began. mr. speaker, may that be the commitment to all of us today, and i would yield to the gentleman, mr. stutzman, and i ould thank him, mr. speaker. mr. stutzman: i thank the gentleman from arizona and as well thank the gentleman from new jersey for their passion -- them or their sharing with us today on such an important issue that faces us as a country. it's a privilege and an honor to stand here with mr. smith and mr. franks and thank you for your work for all you've done for so long on an issue that is close to my heart and close to many people across the country's hearts as well, to see the picture here that mr.

smith showed, if that doesn't touch a part of you, i don't know what will. and so thank you for the information and for the heart that you show for these little ones that are blessed with life until it ended in such a brutal way. mr. speaker, the horrific case of kermit gosnell stripped away the abortion clinics -- the abortion industry's euphemism and showed that abortion isn't safe and it isn't rare. gosnell murdered newborn babies. he preyed on vulnerable women, and he stuffed bodies into freezers, trash bags and cat food tins. while a jury has handed down their verdict for kermit gosnell, we as american people must render our verdict on

abortion. americans must take a hard look at abortion's grim reality. gosnell's clinic, gosnell, the court case and the verdict for kermit gosnell brought us as americans face-to-face with the brutality of abortion. we cannot, we cannot turn our backs on it now. it is time for an open and honest discussion about abortion in this country. kermit gosnell's crimes shocked civilized people everywhere. the inescapeable truth is that there is no moral distinction between ending a child's life five seconds after birth or five weeks before. sadly, across this country abortion providers like planned parenthood, routine perform brutal late-term abortions on unborn children who are able to

feel pain. the end result at a planned parenthood clinic is the same result that occurred at kermit gosnell's clinic and that is death. so i'm proud to stand here today to co-sponsor mr. frank's legislation, to prohibit gruesome abortions of unborn children who can feel pain. i thank the gentleman from arizona for his consistent and strong support of the measure and to a larger extent his support for the unborn children as we've seen today as he spoke so eloquently from the floor. today i'm proud to join my colleagues, mr. smith, mr. harris and others who have stood up for those who cannot speak for themselves, and i'm confident that we will expos big abortion' -- expose big abortion's lives and restore human life. i yield back.

mr. smith: i thank you and mr. franks who is compassionate and courageous and like you and like our next speaker, eloquent in the defense of the most defenseless. i'd like to yield to dr. andy harris who is a board certified n these yolks at johns hopkins -- an these yolks at -- an these yolingist at johns hopkins university. mr. harris: we come to washington to make tough decisions. that's what the country expects of us. mr. speaker, i will offer the fact that one of the most difficult decisions we have to come to grips with is when do . begin to protect human life the gentleman from -- the gentleman was right. does abortion take the life of a human child? and if we all agree that it does, then we have to ask ourselves and come to agreement on, at what point do we begin to protect that life? at what point are we as a nation going to say, that human

life is worthy of protection? now, as a physician, mr. speaker, i will tell you i'm always puzzled by the question because scene tifcally everyone -- scientifically everyone who's taken a genetic's course knows as soon as conception it's a unique human life. the one cell embryo is a unique human life. different from every other one in the world ever. every cell in each of every one of our bodies has the exact d.n.a. that we had when we were one cell big. the only difference is the number of cells we had. and one would argue certainly as the illustration here shows, his is not a one cell fetus or baby. it's a human being that given time will grow, will grow to be your size or my size.

i'm 6'4". i'm a little bigger than normal. some people are shorter than average, but we're all human beings. so size doesn't make the difference. so again from a scientific point of view, to me it's clear. it should be -- it is a human life from conception and should be protected. but, mr. speaker, i understand the country doesn't agree. some people don't agree it should be protected, and so the question is, at what point do you protect it? well, a lot of people would say at this point it probably is worth protecting that human life. certainly the jury in pennsylvania said that you can't kill that baby right after it was born. strangely enough, federal law as interpreted by the supreme court says it can be legal to kill that child five minutes before that birth. i think most americans find

that repulsive. that a baby at almost nine months gestation in many states it's legal to kill that child five minutes before birth but in pennsylvania resulted in three murder sentences because it was five minutes after birth. so mr. speaker, what this bill does it says, let's come together and let's agree on a time when human life is going to be protected. it's not going to be a perfect agreement. it's going to be arbitrary, because, again, that human life started when it was one cell large at conception, that human life started. we all agree that, mr. speaker, you and i are human life worthy of protecting so the question is where do we draw the line and, again, the gentleman from arizona suggested correctly, we need to draw that line. this bill attempts to draw the line. the supreme court attempted to draw it. very clumsy drawing of the line in the roe v. wade decision, because it said is viability.

but the problem is viability over the 30 years -- plus years i practiced medicine has changed. it's a moving target. viability then was 25 weeks. now it's 23. 23 1/4. it's a moving line. what does viability mean? viability means it can live without the support of the mother. that's a little arbitrary, mr. speaker, because if that mother had an elderly mother or grandmother at home, perhaps disabled with alzheimer's disease, totally dependent on that mother -- now, it's not their mother but the mother of a child, a fetus -- that grownup could be totally dependent on that other human being, that other human adult and yet that human -- that human adult doesn't have the option of saying, well, since that individual is dependent upon me i can make a life and death decision for that individual. no, that would be wrong. we'd all say that's wrong. so we're going to have to draw the line somewhere, and this

when we let's do it believe that baby begins to feel pain, that in fact a d and e procedure will be exceedingly painful because, mr. speaker, this is exactly what happens in a d and e procedure. the fetus, the baby, is iterally torn apart. literally, this is what happens with it. so we're going to have to agree, first of all, this is probably not -- certainly not pleasant to look at. the medical books, medical illustrations when i was studying, of course, which was around the time of roe v. wade, didn't have this kind of illustration. but abortion policy in this country in the past 30 years forces us to actually illustrate what it looks like. this is it. so we're going to -- so this bill says, again, in the context of the gosnell trial,

showing all america that, and i think almost all america grease, what happened -- agrees, what happened in pennsylvania, knowingly killing by snipping the spinal cord of an alive, awake baby right after a abortion procedure that resulted in a live birth is in fact murder. it's the taking of a human life subject to punishment. but most people would say, well, but how are we going to protect this child? and i offer that, this is a compromise maybe we all can work around and say, you know what? if that child during that procedure feels pain, then it probably should be protected under our law. now, the question is, again, it's not clear-cut. there will be some disagreement among people when that pain can be felt. there's a lot of indication

scientifically and chemically and with neurodevelopment that that child feels pain at 20 weeks. it's certainly a little more subject to discussion whether it's earlier. i will tell you later shouldn't be subject to discussion because, mr. speaker, you know that if you do a procedure on a premature infant born and brought to the neonatal intensive care unit, you actually administer pain relievers when you do the procedure. so the medical communities are decided that by 23 weeks the fee cuss feels pain and it didn't magically occur with birth, the ability to feel pain. and again, question know by the development of the nervous system, by things we can see and measure, we believe that at 20 weeks that fetus, that baby can feel pain. and therefore deserves

protection. mr. speaker, i would suggest that's a compromise we all ought to be able to work with. again, it's not -- it is a compromise. because, mr. speaker, i will tell you that human life does begin at conception. and again, the discussion here is not going to be when human when egins, it's when should this body, this congress, this government protect the most innocent of human life? i'm going to agree, i think it's very reasonable to say when this fetus, this baby can feel the pain of that procedure it ought to be protected. in some ways. the perfect way? maybe not. but we ought to begin that discussion. because right now, mr. speaker,

the supreme court's interpretation of the law an s a state to allow abortion that kills a baby right up to the moment of birth. and that's just not right. we need to set that, to set some line in law. and again, i'll agree with the gentleman from arizona, may not be a perfect line, but we all have to agree we need to draw it, to begin thinking about it and i would suggest this is a reasonable one. when are we no longer going to subject that baby to the pain of a procedure and begin to protect that baby's life? so i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey again. he's brought the issue before this body. because, you know, if we believe that this is just some abstract thought about when we protect human life, as i've spoken about on the floor and

the gentleman from nnl has, and, mr. speaker, i suggest if you want some very interesting reading tonight, go home and google the journal of medical ethics and look for the article published last november where academics from australia and italy write an article suggesting that it should be l right to kill a human baby up to some certain amount of time after birth if that human baby is inconvenient to the family. to the mother and the family to which it belongs. well, i would offer, mr. speaker, i hope that never happens in this country, that that suggestion never takes root here. i think we'd find that horrendous. but it does bring up the question, if we find it so horrendous one minute before or after birth, shouldn't it be horrendous one minute before birth? and if it's one minute before birth? how about one week, how about one month, how about two

months? we can go all the way back. should it be when the heartbeat appears at seven weeks? seven weeks gestation? the heartbeat appears. even earlier, should it be when the baby moves, when quickening is felt? that's the medical term for it. quickening. this bill sets a reasonable point of discussion. let's do it when we think a baby would feel the pain of that abortion. and with that i'm going yield back my time to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: i want to thank my good friend and very distinguished colleague, dr. andy harris, for his very eloquent and very incisive remarks and for his leadership on behalf of human rights in general and including here in the united states. you know, we've been discussing human rights abuse here in the united states and trying to defend at least pain-capable unborn children from the violence of abortion. i'd like to focus for a few moments on human rights abuse

that's occurring halfway around the world in china. tomorrow president obama will et with chinese president in california to discuss security and economic issues. a robust discussion of human rights abuses in china, however, must be on the agenda and not in a sue per flouse on the superficial way. it is time to get serious about china's flagrant abuse of human rights. it's time for this president this administration to end its manifest indifference towards human rights abuse in the people's republic of china. it's time for president obama to cease his numbing indifference toward the victims of beijing's abuse. mr. speaker, can a government, no, can a dictatorship that crushes the rights and freedoms of its own people be trusted on trade and security?

china today is the torture capital of the world and victims include religious believers, ethnic minorities, man rights offenders and hundreds and thousands of police political dissidents. -- thousands of political disdenlts. if you are a religious dissident or believer, a muslim ethnic minority or tibetan buddhists, if you are arrested you will be tortured and in some cases you will be tortured to death. additionally, mr. speaker, hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort their precious babies pursuant to china's draconian one-child policy which has let to -- led to gendercide, the violent extermination of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. the slaughter of the girl child in china is not only a massive

gender crime, but a security issue as well. a witness at one of my hearings that i have chaired, i do chair the subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights and international organizations, over the years i've chaired over 46 congressional hearings focused exclusively on chinese human rights issues. one of the witnesses at one of my earlier hearings, valerie hudson, author of a book called "bare branches" testified that gender imbalance will lead inevitably to instability and chaos and even to war because of the domestic chaos and stability that will occur. and that the one child, and this is a coat quote from her, has not enhanced china's security but it has demonstrably weakened it. the world-renowned a.i. demog are a ferre has famously phased it and asked the question, what

are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become simultaneously more gray and more male? the missing daughters by the tens of millions in china as a direct result of sex-selection abortion. in 2000, mr. speaker, i authored a law that is known as the trafficking victims protection act of 2000. it is our landmark law in combating the hideous crime of modern-day slavery. sex and labor trafficking. china has now become the magnet for the traffickers. buying and selling women as commodities, selling them in china against their will, of course, through coercion, because of the missing girls, the missing daughters and the missing young women. mr. speaker, earlier this week

the world remembered the dream that was and is the teatman square protest of 1989. and deeply honored the sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of prodemocracy chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for all chinese. 24 weeks ago this week, the world watched in awe and wonder as it had since mid april of 1989 as hundreds of thousands of mostly young people peacefully petitioned the chinese government to reform and to democratize. china seemed to be the next impending triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of the dictatorships in the soviet you've and the war saw pack nations -- warsaw pack nations. but when the people's liberation army poured in around the square on june 3, the wonder of tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear and

helplessness. on june 3 and june 4 and for days, weeks and years, right up until today, the chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response, mass murder, torture, incarceration, the systemic suppression of fundamental human rights, and coverup. the chinese government not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on its own people, but the coverup of the tiananmen square massacre is without precedent in modern history. even though journalists and live television and radio documented the massacre, the chinese communist party continues to deny that it even occurred and to threaten anyone who dare speaks out in china about the massacre. and all the terrible mr. barrow:ity that followed -- terrible bar bar -- barbarity that followed. in the following years, the operational commander who

ordered the murder of the tiananmen protesters, visited washington, d.c., as the chinese defense minister. you see, he was promoted after he killed all of those innocent people. the minister was welcomed by president clinton at the white house with full military honors, including a 19-gun salute, a bizarre spectacle that i and many others on both sides of the aisle protested. but why do i bring this up now? minister chu addressed the army war college on that trip and in answer to a question said, and i quote him, not a single person lost his life in tiananmen square, closed quote. and claimed that the people's liberation army did nothing more violent than pushing people during the 1989 protest. not a single person lost his or her life? are you kidding? that big lie and countless others like it, however, is and it was then the communist

party's line about -- lie about tiananmen. as chair of the foreign affairs human rights committee then, i put together a congressional hearing within two days, december 8, 1996, and witnesses who were there on tiananmen square in 1989, including dr. david aikman, who were actually witnesses at my hearing this past monday, we also invited minister chu or anyone the chinese embassy might want to send to the hearing to give an accountinging of that blatant lie. i guess minister chu was thinking no one would do a fact check. the u.s. department of state asked the chinese government to, end harassment of those who participated in the protests of 1989 and fully account for those killed, detained or missing.

what was the response from the chinese government? the chinese ministry, foreign ministry, acrimoniously said that the united states, quote, stop interfering in china's internal affairs so as not to sabotage u.s.-chinese relations. we have heard that line from the soviet union. we heard it from those who supported apartheid in africa, don't interfere. human rights is universal and we need to speak out boldly and without fear when they are violated wherever and whenever they occur. sabotage relations because our side requested end to harassment and an accounting? sounds to me like they have much to hide. therefore, mr. president, tomorrow when you meet with the unelected president of china and saturday when you meet with him as well, please be informed, be bold, be tenacious and seriously raise human

rights with the chinese president. no superficial intervention, no checking off on the box. raise real names, ask for their release. raise real issues like the horrific one child per koppel policy or torture by the chinese dictatorship. raise the 16 cases that are being raised and given you to raise of individuals, people who in china are like the modern day others who have suffered so much for freedom for all these years. like jang and others. mr. speaker, we will not forget what took place in tiananmen square 24 years ago this past monday and tuesday. the struggles for freedom in china continues. someday the people of china will enjoy all of their god-given fundamental human rights. and a nation of free chinese

women and men, they'll someday honor and applaud all those who suffered so much in the chinese gulags and sacrificed so much for so much for so long. mr. president, the ball is in your court, president obama. raise these issues and do it in a robust, sincere, yes, diplomatic, but very powerful way. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to address heir remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i stand here disappointed in the house of representatives. i was prepared to vote and

support of the homeland security appropriations bill for the upcoming year, a bill that is supposed to ensure our local law enforcement, anti-terrorism experts and border security professionals, have the resources they need to keep our country safe. instead, we saw a bipartisan and widely agreed upon bill that would fund homeland security efforts across the nation be overtaken by a violently controversial amendment from the gentleman from iowa that was included in the final passage of the bill. the last-minute amendment goes beyond the pale of discrimination to prohibiting funding the action plan that will affect dreamers from deportation. this endangers over 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who have no home other than the u.s. and only want a fair shot of education and the opportunity to pursue their passions out of the shadows. i voted against final passage of the homeland security appropriations bill because

this amendment was allowed to be passed by the republican majority and i'm deeply saddened that over 220 of my colleagues shattered these young people's dreams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and it certainly is a privilege to be able to come to the floor and begin a dialogue because there's one thing that i think is vital.

we could hold up the . nstitution, which i often do we can speak with great eloquence on the floor of the house. even go to our districts and speak to our constituents. but i do think that it is important that the trust of the american people, even though sometimes at that timered, sometimes challenged, that what we can at least adhere to that the values of this nation, the constitutional underpinnings that we are all created equal under the declaration of independence and those vital 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, among others, really go to the trust that the american people have in their government and in their documents that are the infrastructure of government. and when i say that, i am not

in any way diminishing some very emotional debates that we've had over the years. we've engaged in debates on war and peace. we've engaged in debates on impeachment, tragically. we've seen assassinations of our presidents. we've seen an assassination attempt on our presidents. and so i know the issue of trust or the issue of stability, sometimes wobbled, because it is human nature, we've seen the tragedy of 9/11, but, yet, americans by and large with polls going up and down will probably be more trustworthy than any other population of people. why? because they have a sense that even in the midst of vigorous disagreement between the part sans, between republicans and democrats -- partisans, between republicans and democrats and between independents that there is something that holds america together. and so i am rising today to try

to be able to weed in and out why we must get back to that trust -- weave in and out why we must get back to that trust and why it serves us no purpose to go on an unsubstantiated witch-hunt on one of the finest public servants this country has ever seen and that is the attorney general of the united states, eric h. holder jr. now, i will be discussing a number of items, because in the course of this discussion, i realize that some will agree and some will not, but minimally what i would like to ensure is that we have a forth right and truthful discussion. that is really key. i base that upon being a battle worn member of the house judiciary committee for any number of years. i have ascended to the position where you are called a senior

member of the judiciary committee. in the course of my work there, i have seen investigations that are far and wide. i lived through the horrific heinousness of 9/11 and having to craft something called the patriot act which still needs to be challenged and we need to err on the sides of the rights of the american people. i have seen the investigation of the tragedy of waco. many people might not remember that. terrible loss of life. i've seen the texas longhorns throngs of -- pulling a family of elian gonzalez, where we should go on immigration reform. we have seen the issues of impeachment and attempts on impeachment, trying to uphold civil rights, trying to write a patriot act which came out of

the judiciary committee right after 9/11 in our most vulnerable time in a bipartisan way that balance the rights of americans alongside of the responsibilities that we had to secure america. i have seen the fight for individual rights, and i'd like to think that when it comes to that challenge, when you look at the record that i have offered, you have seen a record prides individual rights. so i do not believe it is of any value, no matter what you're in, to be in a cover-up. cover-ups usually wind up with the covers being taken off, and so there's not really much advantage to a cover-up. ut i want to discuss a way from the aura of cameras and hysteria the work of a public servant that i've known for a

number of years. having come to this congress a w years ago, i remember that general holder not only worked for a democratic or democratic president but also worked for a republican president. ii held eorge bush mr. holder as his acting attorney general or deputy attorney general, which is the highest ranking under the attorney general. the view of him as an unbiased figure allowed him to be able to be in essence that bridge between administration. he has served as a judge. he's been a prosecutor. he's likewise prosecuted those who would do americans harm. he is a son, if you will, of

hose who struggled to overcome , and he had the honor of being appointed, named as president clinton's deputy attorney general, the first african-american to be so named , pulls him up by his boot straps, having graduated from columbia college, as he's so proud of, in new york, attended the public schools, the schools i'm familiar from, some of my friends graduated from stiverson high school, earned something that is very much sought after in those times, a regent scholarship, allowed him to attend columbia college, majored in american history and graduated from columbia law school. he's not one to accept your challenge of the affection he has for his college and his law

school. he had a sense of desire to do good, and in those times, one of the premiere civil rights law firms was the naacp legal defense fund. no, it is not the naacp. this is a lawyers' group that would defend you no matter who you were. in fact, i remember motley out of the naacp legal defense fund defending the clan in alabama because it is the motto and mission of the naacp legal defense fund that if your rights are abridged no matter who you are we will stand up for those rights. and so he started there with a very refined sense of right and wrong and who should be defended. wound up at the department of justice as what you call a line lawyer, criminal division. previously, ined

i guess he joined the u.s. department of justice attorney general's honors program. he was assigned to the public integrity section, was tasked, investigate and prosecute official corruption, local, state and federal levels. some might say when you saw eric coming you wanted to get out of the way. that was his sense of justice. balanced and fair. attacking those who were doing wrong to our system of justice and fairness and, yes, going after corruption in local, state and federal governments. those were many years since 1976, and if i would take a guess, if he were going to falter in the practice of law or in the upholding of justice, he would have faltered a long time ago. sorry, mr. general, but you've

been around for a long time. 1976 is a long time. , fact, i recall correctly 76 was in the midst of the administration between carter or just after -- just as carter as coming in and after president ford had served. . so he has seen both republican and democratic administrations. nd he has passed muster by his superiors. he's climbed up the ladder. he served in private business and private practice. he's note a new kid on the block. --he's not a new kid on the block. i had a chance to be with his wife, dr. sharon mane