thing. this voice recognition technology in this particular car is very good. the majority are not so good. but it is also all the buttons and screens. you have to go through layers and layers of screens in order to get the function you want. this is anything but non- distracting. if anything it makes you more distracted. it is very interesting to me, as i came in this morning i heard on the radio this morning another survey that came out and said that voice recognition is more distracting than holding your phone, because it causes you to have -- miss visual cues. host: we have to leave there, i apollo -- apologize. thank you for a time, the house is coming into session. now live coverage for the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as we proceed with the 15th week of the republican policy of sequester, this house continues to avoid taking the steps it ought to be taking to

replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative. instead, house republicans have fully embraced the sequester's draconian cuts which slash funding from our highest and lowest priorities equally and put our economic recovery and national security at risk. last week they approved a rule deeming the ryan budget's caps for next year which locks in the sequester cuts. this is a blatant violation of the budget control act agreement reached between the two parties in august of 2011. now, we're about to consider defense authorization bill that shifts $54 billion in sequester cuts from the pentagon onto domestic programs which were already cut by sequester like head start, meals on wheels, rental assistance for low-income families. how shameful. this follows the passage of two

appropriation bills last week as part of a strategy from republicans we've seen before. it came as no surprise they chose to consider two of the most popular bills first, those that fund programs that protect our homeland security and provide care for our veterans. i'm glad there's bipartisan consensus that these bills represent important funding priorities, but let me quote from an associated press article from june 4 which sheds some light on their strategy, and i quote, the boost for veterans came even as republicans controlling the chamber marched ahead with a plan that would require most other domestic programs to absorb even deeper cuts next year than those in place now after the imposition of across-the-board spending cuts. this refers, of course, to the sequester. the article continues, and i quote, republicans are coping with a shortfall by slashing

across a broad swath of domestic programs, forcing cuts in the range of 20%. for instance, to huge domestic spending bill that funds aid to local school districts, health research and enforcement of labor laws. the article goes on to say, the g.o.p. strategy is to early on advance popular bipartisan bills for which almost all of us voted and then bring up bills making deep cuts later in the summer, if at all. in fact, i predict they will not bring up most of the bills notwithstanding their discussions about regular order. by insisting on budget numbers that not only include the sequester but cut even further into domestic priorities, in clear violation of the budget control act and the agreement that we reached between the two parties, republicans are torpedoing any chances of

reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits. the longer we wait, mr. speaker, to forge a compromise that can replace the entire sequester with a balanced alternative the more pain will be felt across our economy and the greater the risk will be to our national security. just ask the joint chiefs, not us. let me review just some of the sequester's many effects. 70,000 kids kicked off head start. 10,000 teachers' jobs at risk from title 1 cuts. furloughs to cause delays in processing retirement and disability claims. four million fewer meals for seniors. 125,000 less h.u.d. rental assistance vouchers. ergency unemployment cut 11% for two million americans out

of work. 2,100 fewer food safety inspections. longer waits to approve new drugs. furloughs equivalent to 1,000 fewer federal agents, f.b.i., border, etc., on the job. we talk about border security while at the same time slashing border guards. one third, one third of combat air units are grounded in america. it's now been over 70 days since the house passed its budget and since the senate did the same. regular order. yet speaker boehner, who claims to wish regular order for this house, will not appoint conferees. or shall i say he's unable to do so as a result of a severely divided caucus. "the washington post" reported on june 3 that the house republicans had, and i quote, disintegrated into squabbling factions no longer able to

agree much less execute some of the most basic government functions. it seems what matters is only a commitment to deep austerity and a weakened government. this ideology has achieved a dangerous manifestation in the sequester which has been the republican policy all along and which, as i pointed out in the past, was included in their cut, cap and balance bill passed in july of 2011 when 229 members of their caucus voted for sequester as an option. now we have further evidence policy ester is their as they refuse to negotiate. there is, however, mr. speaker, an alternative. there is a balanced bill that will replace the sequester entirely. the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen, has put forward a proposal that deserves a vote.

the speaker so often says, let the house work its will. in fact, he's asked for a vote on it six times, van hollen has, and will ask for a seventh time at the rules committee today, but speaker boehner and republican leader cantor has so far said no. the house cannot work its will. the house cannot consider this option. the american people deserve to see where their representatives stand on a balanced alternative to the sequester, and they deserve a congress where real compromise proves stronger than partisan maneuvering. if the van hollen alternative were to come to the floor for a vote, i would hope that a majority of members would vote for it. the majority of democrats certainly would, and i believe a substantial number of republicans who are concerned about our fiscal future. hal rogers, in fact, the chairman of the appropriations committee, has opined how much pain the sequester would be causing and how much

dysfunction it would be causing. it's exactly the kind of compromise approach we need, the van hollen alternative. all we're asking to do in the mmediate term is for speaker boehner allow the house to work its will and have a vote on mr. van hollen's alternative and to follow regular order and agree to go to conference. that's what they said they wanted to do. that's what they said they would do. but they're not doing it. it's time for democrats and republicans to work together in a bipartisan way to rise to our budget challenges and send our country back on a sound fiscal path. let us have regular order. let us have a vote and let us restore sanity to this house and replace the sequester with a balanced solution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cclintock, for five minutes.

mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. we learned about the plight of sarah, the 10-year-old who will die within weeks unless she gets a desperately needed lung transplant. there are no peed at rick lungs -- pediatric lungs, but there may be an adult lung. but because she's nearly 11 years old but not 12 the bureaucratic regulations prohibited it. as secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, could have modified those regulations to conform to the judgment of the doctors, but she wouldn't. her warm words of sympathy for sarah and her family at a congressional hearing last week were horrific. some live and some die. fortunately a federal judge intervened and concluded what sebelius wouldn't, that the regulations are arbitrary and capricious and thank god sarah

is now on the adult transplant list. but the incident provided all of us with a chilling look at what health care will be like when bureaucrats like kathleen sebelius are making more and more of our health care decisions. sebelius constructed a straw man to argue with. she said that we shouldn't have public officials making these choices and a lung provided for sarah necessarily means a lung denied to someone else. that is utterly disingenuous. sarah's family, joined by members of the house, were not calling on sebelius to pick winners or losers, but rather we're calling on her to place the judgment of the doctors ahead of the rigid one-size-fits-all dictates of the federal bureaucracy in all such cases, not just this one. and the fact is ms. sebelius is picking who lives and who dies. the difference is that she is doing so not by defering to the judgment of doctors but rather

by conforming to the cold and rigid regulations that cannot discern between individual cases. this is the process to which we are about to consign every american as government dictates every detail of their health coverage. sorry, you're a few months too young or too old. tough luck. ome live and some die. one grew up in the soviet union and a question when an ambulance called, how old is the patient? that's what bureaucracy does. they choose two lives and two dies and they do so in an unreasonable manner. the fact is we don't want officials making choices which is exactly what ms. sebelius was doing. those decisions should not involve the federal government but rather by the professionals directly involved. until the court stepped in

that's what this administration was impeding, and that shouldn't surprise us. this is the same administration that has substituted the individual medical insurance choices once made by families with the one-size-fits-all mandates of the very same federal officials who dismissively tell dying 10-year-olds some live and some die. mr. speaker, this incident was a dire warning to us all of the danger that lies ahead for every american. remember that the same i.r.s. that abused its fearsome authority to harass ordinary citizens for political reasons now will have the power to enforce regulations over our families' choice of health care by obamacare. we may face the same peril as sarah because of what we set in motion by empowering this government to take an ever-widening role in our health care decisions. we have taken a process that once was determined by

individual choice and was once guided by the professional judgment of the physicians who actually gathered around the patient's bed and turned those decisions over to the likes of kathleen sebelius. and i'm afraid in coming years we will pay dearly for that due policity as we move -- duplicity as we move forward to democratically controlled health care that we can already see so clearly through a 10-year-old's life or death battle with the federal bureaucracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to announce my reintroduction of the states ethics law protection act. at a time when indictments and allegations of ethics violations of our elected leaders have become all too common, now more than ever we must use every tool at our disposal to fight corruption.

unfortunately, the federal government is currently preventing numerous states from using one of the most important tools we had to fight cronyism, corruption and waste. my home state of illinois, which is no stranger to these issues, along with several other states around the country, has taken a stand against crupping by passing laws to elimb -- corruption by passing laws to eliminate pay to play politics which is the practice of trading campaign contributions for lucrative government contracts. pay to play practices erode the integrity of our public works projects and allows individuals to profit at the expense of american taxpayers. . fortunately it is one of the easiest to solve, anti-pay-to-play laws is designed to ensure the competitive bidding process for government contracts is opened and fair. not rigged or otherwise biased by lining the campaign pockets of those responsible for awarding the contracts.

amazingly, a loophole created in a previous administration in the federal highway administration's contracting requirements is making it difficult if not impossible for states to implement these anti-corruption laws. the federal government has threatened to cut off highway funds to any state that passes an anti-pay-to-play law. the highway administration's competitive bidding requirements have been interpreted to mean that states can't weed out corrupt contractors. clearly this was not the intent of congress when it passed these requirements. that is why i'm reintroducing the states ethics law protect action. this important measure simply amends the federal highway administration's contracting requirements to allow states to pass these important laws. ensure states that do pass anti-corruption laws do not face financial penalties for doing so . it is time for us to make it clear that congress supports the right of states to fight corruption as they see fit. states have the right to ensure

their contracting conforms to the highest ethical standards and offers the best value to taxpayers. it is not the federal highway administration's place to second-guess a state on how to best ethically award contracts. states like connecticut, new jersey, south carolina, pennsylvania, kentucky have all passed laws like illinois to root out this kind of blatant corruption. these states should be applauded not punished for doing the right thing. by amending the federal highway administration's contracting requirements, we can ensure that states have every tool at their disposal to encourage transparency and accountability. our states have shown they are ready to reform. it is now our ability to ensure they have the ability to implement these reforms. i am often asked what the true cost of corruption is. i will tell you in my view coming from illinois it's the loss of the public's trust. we cannot lead without this trust.

and if this -- at this critical juncture we must do all we can to ensure trust and inspire the confidence of people across this country. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. the justice department targets associated press, fox news, and other journalists for political reasons the state department and white house contrive a false story about americans murdered in benghazi. cover-ups ensue. the president promotes rather than fires the principal deceiver. the president promises to punish the benghazi murderers, yet the only person jailed is a scapegoated filmmaker the white house falsely blamed for inspiring the benghazi attacks. armed federal swat agents raid gibson guitar and threaten to put them out of business.

why? , gibson guitar imported the same guitar materials they have imported for years, yet martin and company, a gibson guitar competitor, imports the same guitar materials with impunity. the difference? gibson guitar's c.e.o. contributes to republicans like congressman marsha blackburn and lamar alexander of tennessee. while martin contributes $35,000 to democrats. the i.r.s. targets law-abiding citizens who use names like tee party and patriots and dare exercise their freedom association and speech rights. in one particularly outrageous example, texan katherine engelbrect is harassed by the i.r.s., f.b.i., occupational safety and health administration, and alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. why? she founded the king street patriots, which posts weekly discussions on economic freedom and true the vote which trains

volunteers to fight voter fraud. the white house manages the fast and furious gun running scandal that left hundreds of mexicans and an american border patrol agent dead. health and human services secretary, kathleen a billous, unethically and perhaps unlawfully shakes down company she regulates for donne nations to support obamacare. president obama thumbs his nose as america's immigration laws by not only giving millions of illegal aliens a free pass, obama rewards illegal conduct by giving illegal aliens work permits in direct violation of american law, thereby undermining the ability of americans to obtain good-paying jobs. america's in unchartered waters. when our own federal government aggressively undermines our rights of freedom, speech, and association. rights one with american blood on -- won on the american battlefield in trenton, princeton, saratoga, and yorktown, among others.

mr. speaker, america faces a policy debate between privacy and national security. 50 years ago our fauxes were -- foes were well-known nation states like communist china and the soviet union. now our enemies may be foreign neighbors, foreign tourists, or foreign students. foreign terrorists seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction that can destroy an american city or murder hundreds of thousands of americans in a single attack. as america seeks the proper balance between our privacy rights and national security, one thing stands out -- americans must be able to trust our federal government to do the right thing with the privacy information americans give up. if we cannot trust the federal government to use our privacy information solely for anti-terrorism purposes, then the balance shifts. we will not give up our privacy information thereby increasing the risk of a successful weapons of mass destruction terrorist

attack on american cities. more and more our own federal government disregards the rule of law that is essential to avoid the strife and bloodshed of anarchy. more and more the federal government targets american citizens who differ politically with the white house. while the i.r.s., gibson guitar, benghazi, fast and furious, and numerous other scandals are troublesome, the bigger picture is that this white house, this administration has breached the public's trust. the bigger scandal is that this white house, this administration by their breach of trust has undermined america's national security and thereby risks american lives. mr. speaker, the white house can still do the right thing, but the right thing is not cover-ups. the right thing is not rewarding and promoting political cronies and lawbreakers. the right thing is with full and open candor telling the american people the truth about these scandals.

the right thing is very publicly and aggressively firing, offending federal employees. the right thing is very publicly prosecuting lawbreakers. then and only then will the trust of the american people in the federal government be restored. then and only then can america fight the war on terror with certainty that we will win. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i rise to commend two young men from richmond, california, who will begin class this is fall at tallahassee community college in tallahassee, florida. sounds pretty straightforward, i know, but these are no ordinary students. what makes these young men from my congressional district stand out is their background. it's not just that most people thought they would never go to college, in fact most people

thought they would never make it out of the neighborhood. people thought they would end up in jail or even worse. two senior fellows at the city of richmond's office of neighborhood safety peacekeeper fellship, an office that does remarkable job in changing violent lives. they are shining examples of what remarkable transformation individuals are capable off when they desire to make a positive change in their lives and supported in that effort. from a life dominated by gun violence in the streets of richmond to noses buried in books in college -- at college, internships in washington, d.c., and meetings on capitol hill, these young men have come a long way. i wish them the best. i hope their success will serve as an inspiration to many more to follow in their steps and leave the violent streets. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair -- the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes.

mr. poe: mr. speaker, last week just after supper time in the neighborhood of mclean, georgia, a 14-year-old girl, we'll call her sara, was jumping on a neighbor's backyard trampoline. suddenly heard a noise and looked up only to see a low-flying object hovering overhead. it was a small controlled flying object. it was a drone. it had a blinking red light coming from it. the object hovered over her for about 10 minutes. she began to get real nervous and uneasy so she jumped off the trampoline, ran home to tell her parents, but the flying object continued to follow her. she told her mother. so her mother walked outside into the street, observed the flying object, and suddenly the ject moved away into another neighborhood's backyard where

three other teenage girls were sitting in the pool. the small drone hovered over them momentarily, then it moved away. the police were called, they arifed at the scene and told the citizens -- arrived at the scene and told the citizens, sorry, there's nothing we can do. mr. speaker, this sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. someone up to no good spying on teenage girls with a drone. mr. speaker, droughns are easy to find and easy to obtain. a simple google search you'll find out one can buy one on e bay or go down the street and buy one at radio shack. according to the f.a.a., the group that monitors and issues permits for droughns, by 2030 there -- drones, by 2030 there will be 30,000 drones cruising american skies, looking, observing, filming, spying, hovering over america. we'll will not know who they are or what they are up to or looking at or their purpose. whether it's permitted or not. whether it's lawful or unflaul. we won't know who is flying

those drones. there are legitimate uses for government and private citizens for the use of drones. but a nosey neighbor or snooping government should not be able to spy on citizens without legal guidelines. as technology changes, congress has the responsibility to keep proactive and protect the fourth amendment right of all citizens. the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. thus sayeth the constitution. nowadays especially americans are concerned about their fourth amendment rights being taken away. well, no kidding. the right of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a constitutional right. the general rule is snooping, spying, surveillance, or eavesdropping goes against the basic rights outlined in the

constitution. that is why i have introduced the preserving america privacy act, along with representative zoe lofgren from california. congress must be proactive in protecting the rights of civilians from private use and government use of drones. this legislation balances individual constitutional rights with legitimate government activity and the private use of drones. the bill sets forth clear guidelines, protects individual privacy, and informs peace officers so they will know what they can and cannot do under the law. there will be limits of government use of drones so that the surveillance of individuals or their property is only permitted or conducted when there is a warrant base basted on probable cause, as the constitution requires. and of course there will be exceptions. they are call edgy tent circumstances already in our law. these will apply as it does now regarding search and seizure.

those exceptions include fire and rescue, monitoring droughts d floods, and other cases or chase a fleeing criminal. it also allows the use of drones for border security. the bill also sets forth guidelines or other private use of drones. basically private citizens cannot use drones to spy on others without consent of the landowner or that person. congress has the obligation to set forth guidelines, to secure the right of privacy and protect citizens from unlawful drone surveillance. while maintaining lawful private and government use. drone laws are needed because a peeping tom should not be able to spy on young girls who are in the privacy of their back yards just because the peeping tom has the ability to do so. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman for arizona, ms. sinny ma,

five minutes. without objection. ms. sinema: thank you, mr. speaker. brandy reiner, jack wealthy, andy albright, diego, anthony, joe, brandy, gary, christopher. these are the students and college graduates from arizona state university, my alma mater, who shared their stories with me. some of these young adults are my students at arizona state university where i teach. some are recent graduates. some are thinking of starting a family while others are working hard to care for the families they already have. what do these graduates want? they just want a fair shot. they want to know that their hard work in college mattered. that it led to the promise that

their parents made to them when they were little, the promise we all believe in, if you work hard and play by the rules, you will succeed. . what we're working for in our districts, they want a shot at the american dream. instead, as brandy reiner begins her life and career as a social worker, having just graduated from a.s.u. last month, she will face the biggest financial hurdle of her life. she doesn't face massive medical bills or an expensive car loan. it's not rent or a mortgage payment. it's a bill for over $100,000 in student loans. 18 days. 18 days, that's all the time we have to stop student loan interest rates from doubling. 18 days makes a lot of difference to the young people who will have to pay thousands of additional dollars to the federal government at a time in

their lives when those dollars matter the most. christopher has $20,000 in debt and he's just a freshman. gary brewer, $57,000 in debt. kent fogg, $70,000. sarah, $74,000. the federal reserve has noted that the u.s. $1 trillion in student debt is further constricting our economy. young people are forgoing homeownership in order to meet the urgent demands of their large student loan payments, and today as they work hard to find jobs in this recession that they didn't cause, congress debates whether to force students to pay more in order to pay down congress' debt. brandie, christopher, gary, kent, sarah, these combrad wits should not have to foot the bill for congress' failure. in 18 days i want to go back to

arizona and tell these students that i took their stories to congress and that their stories mattered, that their experiences made a difference. when these young adults tell me that they just want a shot at the american dream, that they're working hard, playing by the rules and doing everything they can to live that dream, then they've done their part. now it's time for us to do ours. i challenge us, all of us, republicans, democrats, senators, representatives, i challenge us to stand together and do the right thing. stop the finger-pointing and the cynical posturing. instead, we must act together to keep student loan interest rates affordable. the clock is ticking. there's no time to waste. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, for five minutes. thank you, mr.

speaker. during the past week we have heard about a series of major violations of our civil liberties, including the fact that n.s.a. is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of americans. this wholesale snooping on innocent americans is an unacceptable violation of one of our most basic freedoms, the right to privacy and to be free from government surveillance. and one of many unintended but predictable consequences of the u.s.a. patriot act. i proudly voted against re-authorization of the patriot act three times because of the potential for abuse and more people are starting to see that abuse. even former vice president al gore, not somebody i usually or normally agree with, even he had the right response to the n.s.a. report. he tweeted, in a digital era, privacy must be a priority. is it just me or is secret

blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous? and i tweeted back, crazy but i agree. of course, what's happening with the n.s.a. is just the latest example of the government abusing its power. we've all heard about the i.r.s. scandals in which one of the most powerful agencies in the government deliberately targeted conservative organizations for audits and other forms of harassment. we all heard about what happened with fox news reporter james rosen whose phone was tapped by the justice department even though attorney general eric holder testified before the house judiciary committee that, quote, that potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of the material that is not something i have ever been involved with, heard of or would think would be wise policy, closed quote. needless to say, what mr. holder said under oath is sharply at odds what happened with mr. rosen and i join with my judiciary colleagues requesting he appear before the

committee again to explain these desscrepansies. the n.s.a. is tapping into the servers of companies including google, facebook and youtube. who knows what we'll find out next? when thinking about these scandals, i'm reminded of what james madison wrote in the early days of our country. if men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls in government would be necessary. in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this -- you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself. closed quote. in recent years many members of both parties have forgotten mr. madison's lesson, a lesson that infuses our founding document, the u.s. constitution, that

government powers must be limited because governments by their very nature have a hard time controlling themselves. during the bush years many ignored that truth. in the obama era many ignored it too. what's happening with the n.s.a., the i.r.s., the d.o.j., should correct the misguided idea that it's ok to give the government more powers so long as the right party is in power. because parties change and to quote madison again, enlightened statement will not always be at the helm. for all of these reasons and more, i voted against the u.s.a. patriot act which, despite its nice name, was way, n in such a sweeping was allowing abuse of power. it allows the f.b.i. to seek the production of tangible things to obtain foreign intelligence and to protect the

clan des ion intelligence activity -- clandestine intelligence activities. when it doesn't matter if the caller be a foreign agent here or abroad, you can see how they can collect a wide variety of calls as many analysts suggest what happened in this case. that's why last thursday i joined several of my house colleagues in sending a letter to f.b.i. director muler, and n.s.a. director alexander requesting more information about their data collecting activities. it's time for congress to re-examine the u.s.a. patriot act, and i'm hopeful my colleagues will join me in starting that re-examination. now is the time to work together to reduce the scope of government power before it becomes so large and so impen trabble that regaining our freedoms becomes almost impossible. now is our moment and we must seize it.

i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard, for five minutes. without objection. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, today is international day against child labor which gives us the opportunity to reflect on the plight of hundreds of millions of children throughout the world who perform work that endangers their health, deprives them of inadequate education and denies them basic freedoms and protections. unfortunately, the united states is not immune to discourage of child labor. long hours and dangerous working conditions are sadly a reality for hundreds of thousands of children working in our country's fields and farls. throughout our nation, -- farms. throughout our nation, there is one at age 12 who work the fields picking fruits and vegetables while they are

claysmates do their home work and playing with friends. despite her young age, she would frequently with bare ands wield adult-sized shears. she is often covered in pesticides. despite these does conditions, she takes home to her struggling family a mere $64 a week. our farming industry is alarmingly plagued by preventable tragedies like the one in mount carroll, illinois, where a 14-year-old boy cleaning a grain bin suffocated to death when he was sucked into a sinkhole of flowing corn. tragic accidents like this underscore the fact that agriculture is one of our nation's most dangerous industries. yet, it is the only industry where our children are not protected equally by our child

labor laws. while reserved for adults in every other occupation, in agriculture children as young as 16 are allowed to perform hazardous work like driving tractors and operating chainsaws. it is also the only industry in which children as young as 12 are allowed to labor in the fields with virtually no restrictions on the number of hours they work outside of the school day. to address this shameful reality in our country, i am reintroducing the children's act for responsible employment, better known as the care act. while retaining current exemptions that protect family farms and agricultural education programs, like future farmers of america, the care act raises labor standards and protections for farm worker

children to the same levels set for children in all other occupations. specifically, the care act ends our country's double standard that allows children employed in agriculture to work at younger ages and for longer hours than those working in all other industries. the bill raises the minimum age for agriculture work to 14 and restricts children under 16 from work that interferes with their education or endangers their health and well-being. the care act also prohibits children under the age of 18 from working in agriculture jobs which the department of labor has declared particularly hazardous. this is consistent with current law governing every industry outside of agriculture. mr. speaker, no child should be discriminated against based on the work they do.

all of america's children deserve to be protected equally under our laws. it is our moral obligation to do all in our power to protect the rights, safety and educational future of our most precious resource, america's children. the time has come for the united states of america to bring our child labor laws in line with our american values and give all of our children the fundamental protections they rightfully deserve. i urge my colleagues to support and to help pass the care act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> the bill sets $552 billion in spending for national defense, and an additional $86 billion for the war in afghanistan and other overseas contingency is operations. votes are scheduled throughout the afternoon. we'll have is live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. c-span3 meanwhile has live coverage now of several hearings today going on right now secretary chuck hagel, defense secretary, and chairman of the join chiefs of staff testify in front of the senate budget committee on the defense department's 2014 budget request. the two men will also appear before the house budget committee this afternoon at 1:00 eastern. you can watch that at c-span.org. returning to c-span3 this afternoon, n.s.a. director keith alexanderer and other senior officials testify before a senate committee about the state of u.s. cybersecurity efforts. senators are expected to focus

on revelations that the chinese government and military have sponsored efforts to hack u.s. defense systems. that's at 2:00 p.m. eastern again on c-span3. and here -- >> the c-span video library has reached a milestone. since its online launch in 2007, thru now more than 200,000 hours of c-span original programming. all totally searchable and free. a public service created by private industry, america's cable companies. >> in the subcommittee -- >> here on c-span we are live with the house commerce subcommittee on communications. their second hearing looking at re-authorizing the satellite television extension and localism act which governs the transmission, retransmission of broadcast tv by satellite companies. marsha blackburn, tennessee, member of the subcommittee. the hearing got under way at 10:30. live coverage here on c-span. >> packages and they are

governed by different rules. the question before us is how can we fix a really complex web of regulations that's limiting consumer benefits, restricting content choices, leading to blackouts, and contributing to rising prices. how do we rationalize old rules for the dynamic innovation that's happening before us? our disruptive technologies, one that is can provide broadcast content without paying a performance right. everybody knows that's one of my issues. a byproduct of this outdated video framework. we should have a vibrant debate and welcome input from everyone as we review stella. most importantly we need to look at what the proper role of government is and refocus on the best interest of our constituents who are the consumers of video content. they do expect a level playing field. mr. chairman, i thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i want to thank our panelists. look forward to hearing from you-all as well. when we look at the title of the hearing today, the satellite television laws repeal, re-authorize, or revise, i would think the subcommittee would be wise to revise and expand the stella debate by addressing the other intertwined video issues. many of these issues are government created imbalances that have arisen over the past two decades as the marketplace underwent dramatic transformation. as the gentlelady from tennessee just mentioned. we take for granted that as we are having this hearing today many of us have hand-held device that is can actually pull video and do so many other things that make our life very convenient, but when these laws were written, the device of the day was more like this device. and so when you think that we are currently governed by laws that were written based on the technology of this device, it shows us, i think, that when we

think of the new technologies we have the ability to have access to, the laws dramatically need revision and upis dating. for anyone who seeks further evidence of the marketplace transformation, look no further than the ongoing court case moving through the courts right now. to show you where the imbalance can occur. instead of allowing vast web of government regulations to influence the carriage of programming, we should trust the consume iser demand that is strong enough a tool to ensure that quality programming is carried by paid tv providers at a rate that both willing buyers and willing sellers can agree upon. without the government creating a scale for one industry or another. that's all i'm asking which i believe we can accomplish by reverting back to the basic tenets of property rights and consumer demand to guide the marketplace forward. i encourage my colleague to join me in this pursuit. again i look forward to the testimony and the questioning from our witnesses.

i thank the chairman and yield back. >> is there anyone else on the republican side want the remaining minute? in not, we'll -- if not, we'll yield back the time. i recognize the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. today's hearing is the second time this year that this subcommittee has convened to examine issues surrounding the upcoming expiration of the satellite television extension and localism act of 2010, or what we call stella. re-authorization of stella involves interlocking communications and copyright law provision that is must be shortly addressed by our committee and the judiciary committee. as i stated in our hearing in february, because of the come flexity of this task, i start -- complexity of this task, i start from the presumption we should pursue a clean re-authorization. congress must complete its work before the law expires so

consumers do not inadvertently lose access to programming. at the same time, i believe the re-authorization provides us an opportunity for members to learn more about today's video marketplace and assess whether laws and regulations are keeping pace. as we begin this conversation, we need to qur how we can continue -- consider how we can continue to ensure diversility, localism, and competition which are the principles that undergird our nation's media policy. congress has recognized the need to protect many of these values, especially when the market might not. new avenues for online individual iso distribution are creating excite ising new opportunities for consumers and content creators alike. but to realize these opportunities, competitors may need access to must-have content and independent creators may need the opportunity for their

program to reach audiences far and wide. i represent many interested parties in today's debate in my congressional district. many of my constituents are the artists, writers, producers, and directors whose creativity drives consumer demand for video and who deserve to be compensated fairly. many of my constituents work at the studios and media companies like disney that make desirable content available to consumers. i also represent companies like santa monica-based tennis channel. the tennis channel is an independent cable channel that offers consumers unique tennis and tennis-related programming. congress sought to protect the diversity offered by independent channels like the tennis channel in the 1992 cable act by adopting provisions to guard against discrimination by

vertically integrated distributors. the c.e.o. of the tennis channel sent the committee a letter today outlining his perspective on the effectiveness of the f.c.c.'s so is called program carriage rules. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that mr. solomon's letter be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i hope our discussion today will include consideration of whether today's video marketplace is making diverse is and independent content available to all americans. i'm proud that my congressional district also includes the headquarters of directv, the second largest tv -- second largest video distributor in the united states now serving over 20 million subscribers. not only does directv have approximately 3,000 employees based in california, the company offers 100% california-made

satellites. some of which were also produced in my congressional district. as one of the satellite providers that this legislation was originally designed to assist, directv can educate the subcommittee about why it believes the act should be re-authorized. what aspects of stella are working well. what parts of the law might need to be modified. and i want to extend a special welcome to our witness from directv, mr. palcovich. thank you to all the panel members here today. we look forward to your testimony, your continued engagement as we move forward with this re-authorization. mr. chairman, since i have 35 seconds i'll be pleased to offer it, although it didn't seem to be takers with other time. if anyone wants it can have it. if not i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. that takes care of our opening statements. we'll move on now to the

testimony from our distinguished panel of witnesses. we'll start first with mr. mike hovocich who is the executive vice president for services and operations at directv. thank you for being here this morning. pull those microphones up close, turn them on, the time is yours, sir. ou have to turn it on. >> chairman walden, ranking member eshoo, and members of the committee. thank you for inviting directv to discuss re-authorizing the satellite television extension and localism act, stella. as we speak millions of americans are leaving for vacation. packing lists include sun block and summer reading, increasingly it includes tv. the idea someone could take tv to the beach would have been unimaginable when congress passed the 1982 act.

they can now get it on the device of their choosing and price these can afford. for the most part they get it. but there is one exception to this good news, broadcast television. unlike other forms of television, broadcasting remains governed by antiquated laws designed to favor the broadcaster over the viewing public. we hear more compaints about broadcast related issues than almost anything else. our subscribers complain about high prices, lack of choice, and blackouts. much of this results on the outdated retransmission consent regime created in the 1992 cable act. there are three major problems with this broken system. first, retransmission consent raises prices. between 2010 and 2015, directv's retranscost also increase 600% per subscriber. these cash payments are on top of the enormous fees we already pay the broadcasters for cable channels that were tied to the retransnegotiation, otherwise referred to as bundling. second, retransmission consent

limits choice. the retransregime has led to the consolidation and bundling of cable channels by broadcast owned media conglomerates. in 1992, the broadcasters owned four cable channels. today they own over 104 cable channels, a 2500% ownership increase. for example in 1992, nbc owned one channel, cnbc. today comcast universal owns 22 cable channels, plus 11 regional sports net woverpblgts these corporations use the retransprocess to force our customers to take and pay for all of their channels regardless of whether they watch them or not. the third major problem and the most frustrating for consumers is retransrelated blackouts. broadcasters use blackouts to drive price increases and deny consumers access to what was once free programming. last year alone broadcasters pulled the plug in 91 markets. we see two paths ahead as congress considers stella

re-authorization. one path is to eliminate these laws entirely. representative scalise's bill, next generation marketplace act does this. we believe this approach is better than today's hodgepodge of aging regulation. the other possibility would be to make existing laws smarter. to do so we strongly believe congress should address blackouts. first, in light of the fact that broadcasters use the public spectrum, an outright ban on local blackouts should be considered. alternatively, congress could allow it to provide our customers with distant network signals during a blackout. if the broadcasters local content is as important to consumers as they claim, then this would be a poor substitute and we would have ever incentive to negotiate a carriage deal. finally, congress could allow broadcasters to negotiate directly with consumers. broadcasters would simply set their rates, publish them, and we would charge customers the price the broadcasters set. a consumer could, for example,

choose abc and nbc, but opt out of cbs and fox. as they do today with hbo and show time. this would end blackouts, allow for consumer choice, and allow the networks to charge as much they think their content is worth. let me also address senator mccain's allah cart legislation. this bill demonstrates the growing frustration over the rising cost of content and the inability of consumers to make programming choices. over the years we have tried in vain to negotiate more choice in packaging such ability for our customers. the broadcast corporations either outright refuse or make offers that can best be described as hollow. the result is always the same. higher prices for consumers and forced bundles of channels they don't want or can't afford. we believe the marketplace is best suited to resolve this conflict. ideally we would like to work with the broadcast companies to give consumers what they want. more choice over their programming. however, these media companies continue to reject calls for packaging flexibility, they

leave us no option but to support government intervention. in closing, i cannot emphasize enough that the status quo no longer works for the american viewing public. we speak with over 300,000 of our subscribers every day and they tell us they want change. while directv is not whetted to any particular proach, we do believe congressional action is needed. we stand ready to explore all proposals. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> appreciate your testimony, sir. thank you for being here. now we return to marcy berdict, the senior vice president of broadcasting for shers communications incorporated. welcome back. >> thank you. thank you chairman walden, good morning, ranking member eshoo, good morning. members of the subcommittee, hello. my name is marcy, senior vice president as you heard of schurz communications where i oversee a television stations three cable companies, and 13 radio stations. i am leas the television board chair for the n.a.b. on whose behalf i testify today. local broadcast television

remains unique because it is free, it is local, and it is always on, even when other forms of communication fail. television is the most watched media for high quality entertainment, sports, local news, emergency is weather warnings, and disaster coverage. schurz has television stations in tornado-prone places like wichita, kansas, and springfield, movement, and i can tell you from my own personal experience our viewers rely on us to stay informed during times of weather emergencies, not unlike the terrible storms we have seen is this year. . thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the re-authorization of satellite television extension and localism act, or stela. we asked this simple question, is satellite's distance compulsary license still in the public interest? we know signals is shrinking and more and more viewers are

receiving their local programming through satellite. today, dish provides local to local service in all 210 direc in markets and 196. we need more specific information. for instance, how many subscribers rely on the distance signal? how many subscribers are grandfathered but also receive local into local service? and what is the number of subscribers that receive the distant signal only for use in an r.v. or boat? unfortunately, this information resides only in the hands of dish and direc. we can have an honest debate about whether the law is still needed. n.a.b. asks this committee to embrace a clean re-authorization that does not clue unrelated and highly controversial provisions that undermine the ability of broadcasters to provide high quality and locally focused content.

for example, some would like to use stela's re-authorization to make drastic changes in a free marketplace negotiation called retransmission consent. i believe such changes would harm consumers. i've been with schurz communications for 25 years, and i come to this hearing with a very unique perspective on the video marketplace. my company is a member of both n.a.b. and a.c.a. we are a broadcaster and we are a small cable operator. i can tell you from our advantage point as a small company that's been on both sides of the negotiating table the current system works. so i ask the subcommittee, if the system isn't broken, why fix it? the retransmission consent system in place today has a success rate of 99%. only in washington, d.c., could something that works 99% of the time providing for thousands of deals every year be called broken. this success rate trumps the

effectiveness of the best medicines, the free throw percentage of the most accurate basketball player and the approval ratings of the dalai lama and the pope. yet, no one would doubt whether they are effective. the false fixes being suggested by my friends in the cable and satellite industry would not only harm consumers but would do nothing to improve on the system that we have today. in fact, just the opposite would be true. one proposal would allow the importation of distant out-of-market signals in the event of a contractal impasse. in the real world that means congress would negate existing contracts between broadcast networks, like abc, and their local affiliates like kohd in bend, oregon, or k.g.o. in the bay area. if congress were to allow distant signals to come into local markets, you will have got my affiliation contract while leaving viewers in bend or in the bay area to receive perhaps los angeles or denver news and sports.

additionally, by allowing distant signal importation, congress would be placing its thumb on the bargaining scale by fundamentally skewing the negotiating leverage by the parties. it would mean more contractal impasses, not less. with fewer viewers and less advertising dollars, the local programming that broadcasters provide will be compromised and will leave your customers with local advertising and politicians with no effective medium to reach their constituents. none of this is good for the consumer. in conclusion, as television broadcasters we aren't coming to congress asking for a leg up in our negotiation or for changes to a law to benefit one side or the other. we'll fight our own fights, we'll make our own deals and we only ask that congress not tip the scales in favor of any one industry. i thank you for inviting me here today and i look forward

to your questions. >> ms. burdick thank you very much for your testimony. we appreciate your comments. we'll turn to the president for global distribution of the disney media networks, mr. ben pyne. we're delighted to have you here, sir. please, go ahead. >> thank you, chairman walden and ranking member eshoo and members of the subcommittee. >> i'm not sure your microphone is on. maybe. there you go. >> thank you, chairman walden, ranking member eshoo and other members of the subcommittee. i have the opportunity to appear before you six years ago at a hearing entitled "the future of video." i promised, we, the walt disney company, that we'll get our content to any screen the consumers use, computers, p.d.a.'s, ipods and of course tv sets. i did not use the word ipad in 2007. of course, it was introduced three years after that hearing. while i'm proud to tell you today we continue our commitment to developing and using new technology to improve the consumer experience, in

operation with mvdta, that's tellite, cable and distributors, we have content on downloads. the watch espn. our watch disney apps downloaded 50 million times since last year, offers the similar convenience of disney channel, disney x.d. and disney jr. we were the first broadcaster to launch a streaming service, our watch abc service allows users to watch their local abc stations online and on smart guyses in their home townes. -- guyses in their hometown -- their diadvises in their hometowns. disney has recognized the value of using online video distributors to reach consumers who want to enjoy our content in many other ways.

we're part owner of hulu and ave agreement to host on net -- platforms such as netflix and stream box. while this is critical to our future, we continue to place a very high value. we believe that monthly video subscriptions purchased by households continue to be of tremendous value. we remain committed to deliver outstanding programming to them at all times. as evidence of that in the last few years, we've long-term deals with many of the largest mvpd's. the common thread that runs through our use of all these technologies, old and new, is that each allows us to provide additional value to consumers and customers while achieving a return on our investment in quality programming. quality content is expensive to produce. last year we spent approximately $3 billion producing programming for abc and our own stations.

as a policy matter, given the significant risk and expense inherent in producing great content, it is critical we continue to be permitted to negotiate freely for compensation for the distribution of our content. in this context we believe the current regime requiring mvpd's to negotiate for the right to carry a broadcast signal, the process known as retransmission consent, is working well. ultimate low, this is a process that ensures that mvpd's compensate broadcasters for their value inherent in the carriage of that signal. thousands of privately negotiated agreements for retransition consent have been reached with few interruptions of service. the model of compensating local broadcasters for carriage is working for american consumers. the lion's share of the most watched programs on television is consistently found on broadcast tv. local stations are able to provide outstanding local news and coverage for emergency events. with a launch of our watch abc services, we will be working with our broadcast affiliates

to offer even more value for mvpd's to make available for their customers. i recognize that this committee has heard pleas for changes for retransmission consent. we believe the current system provides the appropriate incentives to reach agreements. we want our local and network programming carried by mvpd's. they want to carry our program because their consumers want to watch it. it has a successful resolution of negotiations. additional government action is not necessary. finally, i would like to turn to satellite legislation. the original law adopted by congress 25 years ago eased the way for the technology available at that time to be used to distribute distant network programming to many households, especially in rural areas, that would otherwise not be able to receive a network programming at all. to their great credit, the satellite companies have made significant investments in their technology and today they are able to deliver local broadcast stations to more households than ever.

as a result, the necessity of the satellite legislation to ensure the availability of network programming is simply not as great as it once was. in fact, we believe congress could give serious consideration to letting the legs sunset. we realize, however, -- the legislation, sunset, we realize, however, what you may feel like if rural viewers -- we understand if you choose to extend it but do so by extending the current expiration date. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. pyne. we appreciate your testimony. we'll now turn to amy tykeson who is the c.e.o. of ben broadband. we appreciate you being here, as i said earlier, and welcome your comments. >> thank you, good morning. good morning, chairman walden and congresswoman eshoo and members of the subcommittee. i'm amy tykeson, president and c.e.o. of bend broadband, a family owned independent operator, cable operator, that serves about 50,000 residential

and commercial customers in central oregon. thank you for inviting me to testify here this morning. my goal is to highlight the challenges facing cable operators, particularly smaller operators like bend broadband. it's time for congress to update the law to meet consumers' needs and interests. let me tell you a little bit more about my company. our tag line says it all, we're the local dog, we better be good. we've invested about $100 million to upgrade our network and bring people in bend the best services available. we employ 270 associates and we're the 14th largest employer in central oregon. we are first mover and we're recognized as an industry leader. he want to discuss three examples of how the outdated video rules are hurting my customers and should be addressed in stela. first, i can't create the

programming packages my customers want. second, the retransition consent process is broken. and third, technology mandates for boxes should be repealed. first, let me tell you why i can't give my customers the packages they want. the major programmers each control a dozen or more channels. when i negotiate with them they tell me i have to take all of those channels and that i have to package them the way the programmers want, not the way my customers want. these bundling arrangements are results in significant fee increases for my customers. program bundling is particularly harmful to smaller operators like bend broadband who are presented with a take it or leave it offer. second, my customers are being hurt by the broken retransmission consent process. i've been through a

retransition consent blackout and my customers don't want it to happen again. but i fear it will unless the rules are updated. for example, congress intended for retransmission consent to support local stations, not to subsidize the operations of big national broadcast networks, but the networks are demanding increasing -- an increasing share of their affiliates' retransmission consent fees. this harms localism by diverting revenues from the local stations. it also drives up the cost of retransmission consent and makes the negotiations more contentious. for the mvpd's, the cost of retransmission consent has grown from about 216 million to nearly 2.4 billion in just six years. and fees are estimated to top $6 billion by 2018.

in my market alone, retransmission consent demands have nearly tripled over the last thee-year negotiating cycle. my final example kerps section 629 of the -- concerns section 629 of the communications act. that rule for set-top boxes that have cost the industry more than $1 billion and have not benefited customers. today, consumers watch programming on a plethora of diadvices, some of which we talked about -- devices, some of which we talked about this morning. these three examples show how it can be detrimental to consumers when government does not review and update applicable laws. the time has come for a comprehensive review of the existing video framework. at a minimum, i would urge congress to amend stela to address issues like the ones i

have identified today, to yield more choice, lower prices and a healthy marketplace to benefit consumers. finally, i want to acknowledge representative scalise and other members of the subcommittee who've advanced the debate on video reform. i look forward to working with you, to examine these important issues and welcome your questions. thank you. >> thank you, ms. tykeson. we appreciate your comments and testimony. we look forward to continuing the dialogue. we'll turn now to the director hal vigant directives, mr. singer. please go ahead. >> thank you. complaints, including an expert tennis nfl network, channel and madison. the role of the s.e.c. and that oversight process -- to design

the proper regulatory framework, one must first understand the nature of the potential harm presented by vertical integration in the cable industry, namely, real estate dux in innovation among independent content providers. why we care about that potential harm? because some of the best content has sprung and will likely continue to spring from independents who are free from the scriptures of a clumsy conglomerate. without any protection against discrimination, independents will be forced to surrender equity in exchange for carriage and thus will be less willing to take risks which would result in fewer programming choices and less programming diversity. there are two schools of thought on how best to deal with this problem of vertical integration. the first, advocated by professor tim wu of columbia aw school in his book, "master switch," is to ban vertical

integration. and police discriminatory acts on a case-by-case basis. the downside of an outright ban is that it sacrifices potential efficiencies related to vertical integration. the downside of a case-by-case approach is if we leaf from discrimination does not come swiftly or if the evidentiary burden imposed on an independent cannot be satisfied under any fact pattern, then after the fact adjudication affords no protection at all. assuming the case-by-case review is the best solution to the problem of vertical integration, the policy question turns to which legal framework is best suited for the task? should the s.e.c. adjudicate these disputes under the public interest standard or should complaints of discrimination by vertically integrated cable operator be addressed under antitrust laws? the problem with the latter approach, the reduction in integration by independents may

not be under the antitrust laws which were designed primarily to prevent the exercise of pricing power. because discrimination and program carriage often does not produce price affects, antitrust is the wrong framework to address discrimination by a vertically integrated cable operator. the lack of price affects in these cases is also why it makes no sense to interpret the nondiscrimination protections of the cable act and antitrust context, even if congress used the word unreasonably in the statute. by seeking to identify harm to an independent programmer rather than harm the competition, congress meant to fill a gap in the antitrust laws. namely, the preservation of diversity in the video programming marketplace. how do we know this? at the time the cable act was passed, the largest cable operator in the country, t.c.i., controlled less than 20% of national video subscribers. if congress meant to import

antitrust concepts into the cable act as some now argue, then congress also intended to immunize all vertically integrated cable operators, including t.c.i., from the nondiscrimination protections of the act as none would have sufficiently high marketplace to constitute monopoly power under the antitrust laws. the absurdity of this conclusion that congress passed eapt trust regulation that was applicable to no one proves that the cable act has nothing to do with antitrust enforcement. finally, i'd like to speak briefly about the appropriate evidentiary burden on complainants under the administrative approach. he -- it is to ensure that a vertically integrated cable operator does not deserve the benefit to an upstreaming programming affiliate when deciding to carry a similarly situated independent network. now, there are two primary ways to establish evidence of this kind of biased decisionmaking.

complainants could show direct evidence that benefits to an upstream network were considered inappropriately considered. in absence of such direct evidence, complainants could establish that the downstream cable division incurred a loss by carrying the independent network narrowly. this finding would create a presumption that there was an offsetting benefit to the affiliated upstreaming network. however, with the exception of a handful of networks such as espn, most independent networks lack must-have status. and thus would be hard pressed to demonstrate any forgone benefit from broader carriage. cable operators create value for their consumers with a buffet of program. requiring them to estimate forgone benefits would be tantamount to asking a leading columnist for "the new york times" to estimate what fraction of its subscribers

would switch to another newspaper if they excluded that columnist? the answer could be none due to customer loyalty to the "times" in general does not imply that columnist adds no value to the "times." complainants should not be required to estimate forgone benefits from broader carriage to it as the current law demands. thank you. >> we appreciate your testimony. thank you. ow we'll go to our final witness, from techfreedom, mr. geoffrey manne. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee. in addition to being senior fellow at techfreedom, i'm also executive director of the international center for law and economics and lecture in law at lewis and clark law school in portland. if you remember three words from my testimony today, remember these -- house of cards. netflix's hit show shows how

the video marketplace has changed since congress enacted the special regulations that now govern that market. it represents the work of a new distribution -- a new form of distribution, a new source of content creation. it's based on new technology. it's rapidly innovating. those regulations are themselves house of cards as well. in the face of technological change, shifting consumer preferences and policy aims, it has a fragile structure that shapes content owners, networks and regulators is bound to fall down. its purposes frustrated, unintended consequences is legacy. to start, stela should be allowed to sunset. the license limit on copyright protection repealed. congress should repeal the related provisions of the cable act, access and carriage, among others. and congress shouldn't extend this regime to -- regulatory

regime online. this isn't deregulation. this is smarter regulation. because behind all of these special outdated regulations are laws of general application that govern the rest of the economy. antitrust and copyright. these are better, more resilient rules. they're simple rules for a complex world. they'll stand up better as video technology evolves and they don't need to be sunsetted. the f.c.c.'s numbers say video prices went up -- cable prices went up 20% between 2006 and 2010 but adjusting for inflation they went up only 10%. meanwhile, the number of channels increased 42%. spending on program went up 30%. americans spent 20% more time watching video. there is an endless range of quality improvements that wept along with it. to say that the current market is in any way constrained, anti-competitive or crabbed seems very difficult to sustain. in short, consumers are getting more for their money, more content, more choices and

higher quality. if net flicks were regulated like a cable network it's not likely the law would allow it exclusive programs like "house of cards." why invest $100 million in a franchise if you -- if it doesn't offer you a leg up on your rifles? exclusive programming helps drive -- your rivals? exclusive programming helps drive competition. it is not restricting programming innovation. if we're looking for rules to change, it's removing local regulatory impediments to competitive infrastructure, like franchising licensing and access to rights of way. allowing more towers to be built would be faster 4-g wireless service making 4-g wireless yet another established competitor the legacy cable and satellite. and intense competition in some markets can benefit consumers everywhere. i point out when we're looking at the potential problems -- the abc of localized -- the absence of localized

competition, these are networks. competition from verizon's fios in new york city, for example, has driven cable vision to enter into agreement with netflix's c.d.n. that means better streaming for customers outside new york as well. competition need not be local to have local benefits. so what should congress do? again, let stela sunset. a clean re-authorization of stela sent clean at all. stela's a mess. we need rules that minimize error costs, that affects which oals, to default we want to encourage. that is regulatory mistakes discovered in retrospect. the definition of copyrights performance rights over the complex effort to use compulsary licenses, must carry, etc., aimed at boastering localism. but arguably, a simple

copyright rule, retained and enforced by the copyright holder would have avoided the problem entirely. while the interest of the dwindling percentage of americans who've used television programming on the air shouldn't -- only on the air shouldn't be ignored, we have to take seriously the possibility that serving this segment under the current regulatory regime carries with it enormous costs that outweigh the benefits. these costs include retransmission fees passed on to viewers, technological and business model constraints and most importantly the enormous opportunity costs, perhaps as much as there are 1 billion, of more efficiently deploying spectrum currently used for broadcasting. i want to address quickly -- excuse me -- also the program access and program carriage rules. these rules ashoe anti-truss rules to promote program disversity and competition among providers. by focusing on the program carriage and program access rules as constructed, we shifted the terms of analysis to a starting point that

assumes all content should be available everywhere. but that not all content is available from all distribution channels is not proof of market failure. similarly, equating diversity with independence is inappropriate. if independence means not affiliated with the distribution network, that amounts for a preference for the abc's "the bachelor" over nbc's "the biggest loser." it prescribe an undesirable effect but is not an undesirable effect but a particular business model and it's a mistake to try to prescribe a particular business model when we don't know in the future what the optimal business model will look like. ending the regulations won't leave consumers unprotected. there is a road for the roit law. >> we thank all the witnesses for your testimony. we go into the question. mr. palkovic, wh deciding to

revise the current satellite law, it's important i think we understand what the impact of each of these decisions really would be on the current satellite television subscribers. how many viewers receive a sdan signals? because that was one of the underlying reasons for these acts, how many consumers would receive a local signal from their local provider and how many would not receive signal from an outdistant signal? so who's in that pool today? >> the entire pool between us and dish is a million and a half customers receiving that. i don't have a breakdown how many people are grandfathered. i think it's a fraction of that, couple hundred thousands. and i thoy those are largely on the directv side. so it's in that range. it's a small piece of the million and a half. but if we were to lose that right through this process, you would basically be taking broadcast programming not only away from the million and a

half customers but there would absolutely be no substitute for it. if there was a substitute they wouldn't be paying us to get the distant signals. they would be getting it in a different way. >> ok. if we could work with you a little bit going forward just so we get an understanding of what that pool looks like in terms of grandfathering in that would be terrific. ms. burdick, i'm interested in getting constituents programming they say are truly local. how do they not get out-of-state programming because they fall into a d.m.e. out of the state? >> i'm a living example of hat, mr. chairman. i live in liles, michigan. my front yard is in michigan. my back yard is in indiana. i vote in chairman upton's district. >> you are in five time zones, too. >> we changed that a couple years ago. although my lawnmower did use

to change -- my cell phone would change when i would go around the lawn. at any rate, i happen to receive comcast michigan signal from its michigan head end. and what comcast does in that case is they reserve channel 3 for -- i'm the cbs affiliate in south bend and i have protections across the market. comcast reserves channel 3 for the local broadcast of the cbs station in grand rapids. so its programming, local news and information can be broadcast in that area. my point of telling you that is there are ways to resolve those situations and we have solved them in the market today. >> i know we have that problem in yuma county. there is a certain former senator who is aware of that. anyway, it's an issue elsewhere in my district. ms. tykeson. when congress passed the 1992 able act and 1996 telecom act,

cable had 90%. cable share dropped to 59.3%, as i mentioned in my opening statement, and 51.6% of all tv households. is there still a justification for imposing on the cable industry regulations such as must carry, basic tier, by through, program carries, program access and set-top box requirements? go ahead and push that microphone. >> chairman walden, thank you for the question. i think when we described earlier how shift have changed and unfolded since 1992 it's a completely different marketplace than it is now. many of the rules you've just mentioned are outdated and they need to be repealed. so my suggestion would be to consider sunsetting the 1992 act and potentially some of the other requirements in the 1996 act so there's a way to go back

and revisit some of those rules. in the stela bill -- >> right. >> there's an opportunity for an examination because of the sunset clause. we don't have that in the 1992 act and as a result we're stuck with a lot of outdated rules that are harming consumers. >> all right. mr. pyne. do you have any comment on that issue of these rules that are put on the cable industry? should they stay or go? >> in terms of stela? >> no. in terms of the must carry, the basic tier, the by through program carries, program access, set-top box program from your perspective. we're trying to get different perspectives here. >> in terms of the broadcast basic by through, i think the marketplace in essence has spoken in terms of the value of local broadcast. for instance, one of the reasons satellite has shown tremendous growth over the past

12 years, especially, is because of their investment in satellite space to drive local into local. to -- and it's a huge investment on their part. but clearly it's because of the value of the local -- each local broadcast community or each community in this country that has allowed their investments. so in essence even though they is it have the option to have national programming, they actually decided as a matter of course to deliver local programming. >> if i may add one quick point, though. i think the problem now is we have competitors in markets like mike's company in, say, bend broadband that have different rules so the playing field isn't level. i think we need to, for example, on the must buy, that's got to go. >> marci, go ahead. >> can i speak about must carry for just a second? i think many members of this committee have rightly been concerned about diversity. one of the values of must carry

is that these are stations in a local community that are sprung up by service to that local community. of the stations that are must carry stations today, 69% of them carry some religious broadcasting. 39% of them carry some directed ethnic program to those communities they serve. and must carry as a result of must carry today networks like -- channels like fox, univision, and others like that began as mississippi must carry stations, got traction and developed a business model of their own but they are extremely important today in localism. >> i've actually gone a minute 41 over my time and the committee has been indull gent. i at the ter fought ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. eshoo, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i never mind

listening to you so thank you. well, the title of today's hearing is "the satellite television law, repeal, re-authorize or revise." and in some way, shape or form, each one of you have taken up one of those words. so it really fits with what the title of the hearing is. i'm also mindful, you know, as you make your recommendations to us, that these are really some huge rewrites of business plans. and those are gigantic lobbies, quite frankly, around here but we're going to do our best to come up with the best and i thank you because we really have a mix of views which is very healthy here today. the question i want to ask -- and i am going to have to

submit some for the record to respond to because i won't have enough time to ask all of them -- are a little beyond just stela. since you're here, i still want to ask them. mr. palkovic, i now understand why it's called directv because you are very direct in your approach. in misburdick's testimony, she stated that the -- in miss burdick's testimony, she stated that they negotiate with paid television providers for the retransmission of their signal is working just as congress intended. do you agree with the assertion? and if not, what would you propose changing? try to be as brief as possible. >> i'll make a quick distinction. working as intended as working well. it's working fantastic because they have all the protection

and rights of the laws that were in place in the 1992 cable act. what i don't think was intended they would go from four cable channels to 104 with regional sports networks and use the retrans process for us paying an exorbitant amount because we risk them blacking out channels as part of the renegotiations. what we want to address here is the unintended part of the combination of those laws. ok. and that's what's different today than was there in 1992 was we were in a situation where we were dealing directly with broadcasters. now we're dealing with huge conglomerates that include able m.s.o. if they raise it exorbitant they are paying themselves. >> mr. pyne, welcome. nice to have you here. should arrow prevail in court? some network executives have

been quoted of saying, there would be a radical shift away from the free over the year broadcast signal that consumers have enjoyed for more than half a century? if broadcasters began offering programming on a subscription only basis, do you think they would still be in compliance with the public interest terms of their f.c.c. licenses? >> as it relates to the area of case -- i know there are other network executives who have said certain things. our company's position is -- i think is evidence, we are in pending litigation with arrow. we'll always -- we'll always to everything we can to protect our content and the copyright and the illegal appropriation of our content. >> very carefully crafted response. very good. >> it is on the prevailing litigation. >> i understand. thank you. to mr. singer, do you think our

current law is sufficient in ensuring the availability of diverse independent programming like ovation, hallmark and the tennis channel? and if not, why do you think the cable act is failing to accomplish its intended goals? hould we modernize the program, access in the program, carriage laws and if so how? now, maybe if so how is to -- i don't have very much time but you have 36 seconds for a question. >> i think that the laws as written, program access are fine. the problem is in the details of the implementation. and i actually think that the f.c.c. has done a nice job here in implementing rules. san francisco, once they come to a decision their de-- of course, once they come to a decision, the judge's decision can be overturned by the f.c.c. and there is a period, again, the decision of the f.c.c. can

be overturned by the district court. d.c. court of appeals. i think the problem now very shortly is that they've -- the court has layered on certain burdens that will make it all but impossible for complainists to prevail. i think at the current moment there might not be carriage complaints brought and that would be certainly inconsistent with the mantra of congress. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'm going to questions to the witnesses and i'm especially interested in the whole issue of copyrighted material deserving competition -- compensation. i think it's a very important area for us to explore. especially when it comes to radio fairly compensating artists for their copyrighted materials. so with that i yield back.

>> i thank the gentlelady. and we'll now go to the vice chair of the full committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. eshoo and i think have some of the same questions. and i'm going to go right to the copyright issue. ms. burdick, let me come to you. i appreciate your comments and how you expressed support for property rights. i'm quoting, recognizing local broadcasters' property interest n their signal seeking compensation. i agree, program deserves to be compensated and incentivized. what about the radio side, refusing to recognize the sound recordings, if that undermines your position before us as we look at the video prame work and the retransmission -- framework and the retransmission rights? as you know radio broadcasters say they shouldn't have to pay

performance royalties because they help distribute an artist's music. so square that up for me. where's the contradiction in that? >> sure. just by way of background, our company has been in the radio business for 90 years, 18 months after the first commercial station was -- >> quickly. >> there's been a relationship between radio and artist -- radio and artists during that period of time. and the difference is that when my radio stations play the artists' music, the listeners are getting it for free. we are talking about taking the local television program and repackaging it and selling it to consumers. in the latter case, if you're charging for it i should be compensated for it. on the radio side, i recognize there is a healthy debate in the industry. we are providing that for

broadcasters for free. >> ok. you can look at it and say that they are helping to distribute your signal which helps to increase your ad revenues, and o maybe brauferts, radio brauferts should be -- broadcasters, radio broadcasters, should be paying for those rights for entertainers. mr. manne, you had a little bit to say about this. do you want to weigh in on this side? >> just briefly i would say i think the distinction is a distinction without a difference. i don't think you can really square the rejection of the compulsary right in one case and not the other except other recognize the broadcasters are net beneficiaries in one regime and they're net payers in the other. and so it makes perfect sense they would prefer one over the other. i don't think that squares with the public interest. >> ok. thank you for that.

i think this is one of those points that we will continue to look at because content does deserve to be compensated. and the creator and the holder of that content deserves to be compensated. ms. tykeson, given how government granted retransmission consent fees have grown from $216 million in 2006 to what will be over $3 billion this year. who is benefiting and what is driving that growth? >> congresswoman, thank you for the question. there's two groups that are benefiting from the retransmission consent fees. originally those fees were designed to allow to help level the playing field between the local broadcaster and the cable company. of course back in 1992 it was a very different circumstance than it is today. what's happening now is the national broadcasters are

requiring fees be paid through the local affiliates and that's increasing the fees at huge rates, as you mentioned. so that -- all those fees are going -- they're accruing to the large conglomerate broadcast companies that control 60% of the top 50 networks to on the backs of my customers. >> ok. you also stated in your testimony that there are barriers to creating programming packages that are responsive to consumer needs. so what has led to your business' hands being tied in meeting the needs of your consumers? >> congresswoman, there's three things that are happening that affect my customers in bend, oregon. the first is the size of the increases that we're asked to play by all of these programming channels on an annual basis which range between 8% and 10% roughly for

every channel. in addition with these large bundles of programming, there's always a must-have channel in there but there's a lot of other channels that maybe my customers wouldn't want. what's happening is the large programming companies are forcing those channels into certain packages. i used to be able to have a special sports package that could meet the needs of customers that want a sport but now in many cases those expensive channels are being pushed down into the more popular packages that is increasing the prices for my customers. >> ok. my time has expired. mr. chairman, i got a question i'll submit to all witnesses and ask for their response in writing. and i yield back. >> i thea the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chair of the committee. we'll go to the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i commend you for this hearing. i appreciate your kindness and courtesy to me. to the surprise of all, i probably won't be asking questions today, but i got some

brief cautionary remarks. i am somewhat alarmed by the preference of comments in the testimony -- prevalence of the comments in the testimony of our witnesses today that are extraneous to the basic issue that we seek to address. successive iterations of the 1988 satellite home viewer act, shva, were enacted by congress in order to extend the principle of localism to the greatest degree possible, to unserved viewers. note that thanks to shva and with subsequent re-authorization, directv and dish are now the second and third largest paid television providers in the country. and are able to compete on a more level footing with the traditionally dominant cable companies. and its successor legislation

have fulfilled their intended effect. now, the committee last considered the satellite television extension and localism act legislation in october of 2009. that bill was comprised of nine titles, but it had only 30 pages or thereabouts. it's main provisions extended sections 325-b of the communications act with respect to distant signal carriage and good faith negotiations as well as address problems related to significantly viewed stations and the aftereffects of the transition to digital television. now, to put this in simple terms, the committee's work on satellite television legislation has been predicated on the simple principle of localism and it should continue to do so. in closing, i recognize the

landscape for video has changed significantly in the past 5 -- 25 years. if the cable act or related laws related to the video marketplace are to be amended, they should be amended on the sound basis of a thorough record established by the committee's diligent record -- diligent efforts to achieve such record. at present, the committee has not established such record. and i have to confess that i don't think that most of my colleagues, including me, understand full well what the situation is or what it is we should do about these matters. and so without those kinds of things and without a record to define what our efforts should be, i think we would be well served to confine our efforts here to a clean re-authorization of the

satellite television extension and localism act. i would observe to fail to do this is probably going to project the committee into one of the dog gonest downing brooks in recent history and i hope for the benefit of all of us and for the need to do other things that we would keep that thought in mind. with that, mr. chairman, i return with my thanks and gratitude a minute and 44 seconds. and i appreciate your courtesy to me. thank you. >> would the gentleman just yield? >> if i have time, of course. >> the gentleman yields. >> thank you, mr. teengle. i can't help but -- thank you, mr. dingell. i can't help but jump in here given what the gentleman from michigan has said. i think everyone here knows, and if you don't you're going to be reading about it, that mr. dingell is now the single longest serving member of the

united states congress in the history of our nation. and he's spoken again very, very wisely and prudently today. so we not only congratulate him and celebrate what -- the work that he has done at this committee. every major law that we can name on it. his thank you, mr. dingell. and thank you for what you said today and bravo. >> mr. chairman, i want to express my thanks and respect to the gentlewoman from california and my thanks for her kind words. my dad used to say. son, it ain't how long you took but how well you did it and how hard you tried. i've tried to concentrate on the second part of that comment. thank you very much, ms. eshoo. mr. chairman, i thank you for

your courtesy again. >> the chairman emeritus yields back. and at this time the chair recognizes himself for five minutes and, again, i want to thank all the panelists for appearing before us today. and it is a very important hearing. we're going to be going in the next year and a half with the re-authorization or where we go. if i can start with ms. tykeson, if i could start with you and ask you a couple questions and first, again, congratulations on your award. i represent a very interesting area and one that's south of mr. dingell's area in ohio and it's a -- it goes from an urban area to a very rural area. and so it's serviced by many small operators like bend broadband. i want to ask you about step top -- set-top box, if i could. and you've called on congress

to repeal the ban on integrated security on the set-top boxes, but you note in where you are written testimony that your company was granted a waiver of that rule. and why is this rule relevant given all the areas that we can get programming from and do we need the 629? >> thank you for your question, congressman. we were able to receive a waiver back in 2008 so we were able to go all digital. we were the first company in traditional cable company to go all digital and reclaim all of our analogue spectrum. what's changed since even since then is the plethora of devices hat are available and so determining how people receive their signals using hardware in today's world where applications or software can do the job is a much more

efficient way to do that. a lot of companies can't do -- put together a waiver because they're too small. and having this rule on the books that is outdated and no longer relevant is costing billions of dollars and preventing technology from moving forward. thank you. >> let me just follow-up. you said some of the companies out there can't do it because they're too small. how small is few maul? >> i'm a member of the a.c.a. which is represents small operators and there's companies out there with a couple of hundred cable customers. >> ok. if i could follow-up with you on that. i understand that the f.c.c. has admitted that their cable card rules have not been successful and market for set-top boxes as section 629 of the 1996 act intended. however, the f.c.c. has been encouraged to adopt all rules that apply to all paid tv

providers to remedy this situation. what's your position on that? >> well, i think the problem with the rules that -- with regards to the -- accuse me. i'm a little bit nervous. >> no, go right ahead. >> is that some of these rules are only applying to cable companies. and they're only applying in the united states. and so we're artificially impacting the cost of hardware, and i am not in favor of trying to regulate who should be doing what with technology that's changing fast and rules like we have in the 1992 become outdated and they're impacting the marketplace and how it unfolds. >> thank you very much. and mr. pyne, if i could ask you just a couple questions. i find it really in your testimony you stated that in

cooperation with our mvpd's, for example, cable, satellite, you elco distributors, make live streaming of many of our channels to subscribers on their tablets and smartphones. we hear how things are changing out there. across the country are getting their information, and i'm just kind of curious. when you talk about making that live streaming available on all these different channels and subscribers, do you have any breakdown of the ages of the individuals or the regions? is it particular or is this across the region just on the age groups, out of curiousity for one? >> on the specific -- with our watch services, i don't have the breakdown. we can certainly look into that. just to be clear, part of the reasons -- we call this tv everywhere. the industry calls it tv everywhere.

it really is part of the industry's effort to continue to find ways to provide an incredible valuable package to consumers. just quickly, this week michael powell, head of the nctt, said on stage the average viewing -- the average cost per hour of viewing entertaining content is 23 cents. so 23 cents is the average cost of viewing which in terms of entertainment options, he was saying it's a very gret bargain. commend companies like bend, direct and others for doing a great job in creating that value. i will tell you abc.com, in 2004, when we had such great hits as "lost," "desperate housewives" and grey's anatomy," when they were off the hour they were pirated off the air. we created abc.com, which is live streaming at that point, and statistics we found in that

the average age of a linear television was in the early 40's but the average age of someone who watched abc.com was in his or her early 30's so that will give you some indication. >> thank you for that and my time has expired. and at this time i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. burdick and ms. tykeson, both your companies deal with retransmission consent as small cable providers, yet, you seem to have a disagreement on the effectiveness of the regime. why do you think that is? >> well, as i have said, i'm the small broadcaster, small cable company at either side of the table. they have been some remarks today about consolidation of broadcasters. we're small compared to the consolidation of the video provider world. the top four video providers

control 62% of the market. the top 10 control 91%. so in my negotiations as a broadcaster, i'll start with a major mvpd with millions of subscribers that says, hmm, you cover in your six markets 1.8% of the country. i can afford that. so it's a tough business negotiation either way. if i spoke as a cable operator, which i'm not today. i'm speaking on behalf of n.a.b., but the negotiation is equally tough on that side of the table. i think what it proves is that the marketplace works. there are -- >> as a small cable operator, though, you think it works? >> it works. >> i don't think it works because it's not a free market. so i have a choice of one affiliate in my market. some cases it's a great affiliate because they provide local news. >> just to let you know you can continue to watch this hearing online at c-span.org.

here on c-span, the u.s. house is gaveling in momentarily so we'll take you there for live coverage. this afternoon, a number of bills that would alter provisions of the 2010 dodd-frank financial regulations law. also this afternoon, the house will begin consideration of the 2014 defense authorization bill. the program and policy bill strength $552 billion for national defense and $86 billion for the war in afghanistan and other overseas operations. votes throughout the afternoon. now live house coverage here on c-span. in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, colonel andrew gibson, maine army national guard, augusta, maine. the chaplain: for those of you who are so inclined, would you join me in a word of prayer. gracious god, we thank you for allowing us to live in a land that is free and we thank you for the men and women who have served to ensure that freedom. as this body convenes to create

the laws of this land, might we faithfully plan far day when war is forgotten, but that we would never forget the warriors who brought us to do that. guide us that we might, through inspired legislation, be a healer of all nations, a healer of our own nation, and a healer those who have willingingly -- willingly traveled far from their homes going back to the founding of our great nation. bletsdz the men and women of this house, give them an ample portion of their wisdom, their courage, and your love this day and forevermore, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn.

ms. hahn: please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, is recognized for one minute. mr. michaud: mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome counselor andrew gibson as today's guest chaplain. colonel gibson is from pittsfield, maine, is a decorated veteran, who served in the maine army national guard for 25 years. before being deployed to afghanistan in 2006, he served in bosnia in 1997 as one of the first two national guard chaplains to ever be deployed to a hostile fire zone. currently, colonel gibson is a joint force headquarters maine chaplain and director of

deployment cycle support. in these role, he oversees the spiritual needs of the maine guard soldiers and families and coordinates a team of health professionals who provide support to our service members, veterans and military families. colonel gibson's service also extends deep into our communities. he sake organizer of the maine annual interfaith prayer breakfast. colonel gibson is a true asset to our state of maine and our country. i'm proud he is my constituent and it is an an honor to have him deliver today's prayer. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the entleman from kentucky rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today to implore my fellow congressmen to wake up. can't we see what's happening? in just the past month we discovered that the n.s.a. is snooping on millions of innocent americans using the patriot act. but congress wrote the patriot act. the i.r.s. is targeting conservative organizations using the tack code. but congress created the tax code. and the d. shmplet has stockpiled 200 million hollow point bullets. mr. massie: congress just funded the d.h.s. last week. you want me to be surprised, i'm not surprised, i'm outraged. but what's happening here? in each case of executive overreach, congress gave an inch and the executive branch took a mile. when our civil liberties are stolen congress investigates and ex-pressdzes righteous indignation but all too often congress turns around and funds and enables this unconstitutional behavior. if we don't res very this trend, we can kiss our civil lib ities good-bye.

the constitution embodied principles that men and women fought and died for to protect. i encourage my colleagues to reflect on the damage that cspa, the patriot act and others have wrought on our civil lib ter i -- liberties. don't yield an inch. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose duds the gentlelady from california rise? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: madam speaker, the pivotal day for immigration reform is before us. i'm pleased that a bipartisan group of senators have come together and create a road map to citizenship for the 11 million people in this nation who have worked hard and contributed to the success of this nation. we're a nation founded by immigrants and working families. it's what makes this country strong. let us not forget that nearly every american family has its own immigration story. we all pledge allegiance to the

same american flag, and we all hope to achieve the same american dream. our nation's immigration system is broken. this is our chance to get it right. let's get it right for those young dreamers. let's get it right for the tireless working mothers and fathers. let's get it right for same-sex families stuck on opposite sides of the border. together we can build an effective, fair and inclusive system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of immigrants. let's get it right this time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, where is the accountability, from benghazi to the i.r.s. to the justice department monitoring reporter emails, trust americans should have in their government is being shaken and for good reason. it's unfortunate we're spending time and resources searching for answers from our own leaders. mr. bonner: americans have questions like, has the president been completely -- mr. rogers: americans have

questions like, has the president been completely truthful? who targeted consumers groups? were mormon toured by the justice department more than just the a.p. and fox news? did attorney general holder mislead the u.s. congress? because of his failed leadership on this and other scandals like operation fast and furious, i've called on eric holder to resign. the buck has to stop somewhere. it's time for the obama administration to come clean with the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. we'll vote on the national defense authorization act and as we debate this important legislation, we must keep in mind the deeply troubling problem of sexual assault within our military. the vast majority of men and women who are in our armed services serve us with honor

and distinction. but their dedication is undermined by those who commit sexual assault. last year nearly one out of every 16 active duty women reported having been the victim of an unwanted sexual contact. this is a deplorable situation. last week in a truly bipartisan manner, the armed services committee produced a bill that we will debate today. it prohibits the dismissal or reduction of guilty verdict and the sexual assault convictions. it makes sure those who are found guilty of these heinous crimes will be discharged from the military and adds other important protections for victims of sexual assault. as leaders we have a doubty to protect those who -- we have a duty to protect those who protect us. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, madam speaker. those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. mr. messer: ben franklin uttered those words several hundred years ago, but his warning is still relevant today. reports of the national security agency has been monitoring the phone records and internet activities of ordinary citizens should concern every american. the president has said that these surveillance programs don't involve listening to people's phone calls or reading their emails. americans want to believe their president. yet, his tax agency lied about targeting conservative groups and his justice department spied on reporters who were just doing their job. as a nation, we would be wise to heed ben franklin's advice and make sure that there is a bright line between acceptable counterterrorism activities and

unacceptable violations of our fundamental rights. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the entleman from delaware rise? mr. carney: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carney: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to pay tribute to a fallen soldier from my home state of delaware. st week i join the family of officer mullen to witness the dignified transfer of his remains. shawn, whose family resides in dover, delaware, was killed earlier this month in afghanistan. he was on his sixth tour of duty. he leaves behind his wife, nancy, and a life full of service, loyalty and courage. as i stood with shawn's mother, through her tears she asked me to do one thing. she said, let the people know what these men and women go through. let them know what they do for their country. and that's why i'm here on the floor today, to do what this

gold star mother asked me to do. to remember the hundreds of thousands of americans who have volunteered out of a sense of patriotism and selflessness to put themselves in harm's way in service to their country. so to shawn mullin and his heroic brothers and sisters in arms who have given their lives to protect ours, i stand here today to say thank you. may god bless you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom arkansas rise? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. cotton: today i want to highlight another potential i.r.s. abuse, namely, unfair audits of adoptive parents who file for the adoption tax credit. we've all heard about the abuse of conservatives, christian and other groups. but few people know the alarming stories of people who use the adoption tax credit to

offset some of the high costs of adoption. according to the i.r.s.'s own taxpayer advocate service, 90% of those who filed for the adoption tax credit last year were flagged for additional review. nearly 70% were audited, but only 1.5% of adoption credit claims are disallowed in the end. by contrast, only 1% of all tax returns are audited. adoptive parents are loving, selfless americans who are simply trying to provide a safe and loving home for kids in need. an adoption is a reflection of the compassion of our country and helps saves innocent unborn lives that may otherwise be ended by abortion. we can do all in our power to encourage abortion, not discourage it, through bureaucratic run-arounds. i ask congress to get to the bottom line of the unfair treatment to adoptive parents. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor sergeant marabel ramos, a resident of my district who was laid to rest this past week. her dedication was displayed in her many promotions, commendations and medals earned during deployments to imminent danger areas like korea and iraq. sergeant ramos served her nation with both duty and honor, both home and abroad. back home she was set to receive a degree in criminal justice from cal state-fullerton, this may. during her enrollment at the university, she served as an inspiration to other veterans, allowing them to preserve and to pursue their dreams through higher education. unfortunately our heroic sergeant ramos died at the age of 36.

she is a hero because of the way she lived her life. she lived the life of honor and service, both as an army sergeant, community leader, and to her family, i convey the deepest condolences from all of the community and may she never be forgotten. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the entlelady from alabama rise? mrs. roby: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i rise today to discuss an issue that matters to all americans, jobs and economic growth. the story got buried with all the breaks news of last week, but last month job numbers are in and they aren't good. on the surface, the u.s. economy adding 175,000 jobs might sound like good news, but look deeper and you'll see troubling indicators to our economy.

manufacturing actually lost 8,000 jobs in total. this recovery is so weak by historic numbers that it produced four million fewer jobs than any recovery since world war ii. madam speaker, this isn't real recovery. if we're going to improve this economy and create jobs, we need less government and more freedom. every day house republicans are seeking solutions to grow the economy. let's make life work for families across the country and expand opportunities for everyone without expanding government. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: i was proud after 9/11 to enlist in the national guard, proud then as a private i went to fort jackson, south carolina new york basic training and learned about the army values of respect,

integrity, and honor. proud to be a part of an organization where strong, unbreakable bonds of trust exist between my brothers and sisters in uniform. but i am not proud that ea we as a clint have allowed an epidemic of sexual assault in the military to continue to such great lengths today. i feel it is my responsibility to my brothers and sisters in uniform to take action to address this issue and why i've introduced a bill to have a fair, independent, transparent process to bring justice for these survivors and to prosecute those who are guilty. we've seen calls to action from communities across the country, headlines from "the washington post," "new york times," "usa today" and my own local newspaper, the "honolulu star advertiser" each calling for us as congress to pass these measures. we must take action. we owe it to ourselves as heroes -- to our selfless

heroes and leaders who put their lives on the line for our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from south dakota rise? mrs. noem: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. noem: last week i was speaking to a group of individuals and talked about the need for a healthy economy and an energy plan where we prioritize american energy. a woman in that meeting stood up and talked about her story. her husband had his hers -- hours redeuced because of the obamacare bill. she talked about her kids two teenager whrks can't find work. if they want to go to hurge during the book, play baseball games, do daily activities that normal, everyday families do, they'll put hundreds of miles on their car and spend hundreds of dollars on gasoline tiing to make it happen. hat's why i am so committed to support bills that deal with the problems families like this

face. it's important that we pass a five-year farm bill. it's important that we make sure food is affordable and safe in this country. it's also important that we focus on american energy and using the natural resources we have at home and it's important that we talk about the keystone pipeline. we're going to continue to work to ensure that our students get education, that they can pay off their loans when they're done and that they can continue to pursue the american dream like we got to do decades ago. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to announce a new and advance -- a mathematics, t in an algo rhythmic solution to an equation that's taken 100 years describes the

behavior of quantum particles on one hand and material we can observe on the other hand. mr. mcnerney: it talks about how gases and other materials settle into equilibrium. it gives us a look at collisions when molecules glance off one another. it uses a range of geometric fractional derivatives from kinetic theories. i congratulate the authors from the university of pennsylvania on this advancement and commend the national science foundation for supporting scientists in their work. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. president obama took the stage and admitted some americans will see higher costen health care -- on health care premium

bus plamed employers for shifting costs rather than taking responsibility for the damage caused business hi health care reform. he also said the law was, quote, working the way it was supposed to, end quote. but many employers can't tell their employees exactly what their health insurance premiums will look like next year. worse, the neglected to include all the facts in his stump speech, touting a recent report claiming that health care would be less expensive for californians under the law. the truth is in california the cheapest plan far 25-year-old man under obamacare is $6 -- is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. the uncertainty around implementation and cost is causing economic chaos during a time when employers need stability and it appear this is train wreck is only going to get worse. madam speaker, obamacare was a bad idea three and a half years ago and today we're seeing

exactly how bad this law is and bad medicine it is for this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to draw attention to the congressional renewable energy and energy efficiency expo being held here today. mr. butterfield: my constituents in north carolina investing in energy and improving efficiency can create jobs and reduce cost. the estimated 508,000 jobs in renewable energy industries are continue oing to grow. triangle industries in north carolina continues to expand each year. the biofuels center of north carolina, located in oxford is working to replace 10% of the petroleum used in our state with locally produced biofuel. a proposed chemtex plant stands to bring more than 300 direct and indirect jobs and increase

revenue for farmers by $4.5 million annually. this wouldn't be possible without a loan guarantee from usda. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new yorkize? >> i ask unanimous consent to address he thousands -- to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i come to the house floor today to share real life examples from my district concerning the growing trend happening all across this country because of obamacare. my office received a call from works r-old, holden he 30 hours a week for a manufacturer while carrying a full college course load. his boss recently told him his weekly hours would be cut from 30 to 20-25, in order to avoid the obamacare employer mandate. despite him staying on his parents' health insurance policy.

last week, richard markel called with a similar concern. he's trying to make extra money for his family. his regular 32 hours per week are being reduced to less than 25 to avoid the perverse mandates of obecause -- obama care. mr. collins: americans want to get back to to work. unfortunately, obamacare's onerous regulations are hitting employers in way miss didn't expect. and it's just the beginning this country realizes obamacare is a train wreck. just ask these two gentlemen. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: thb the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to congratulate eight outstanding students that attend morningside middle school in fort worth, texas. , maria -- yantel

they were all contenders in the academic championship. this is the first time students from the 33rd congressional district's morningside school participated in the qualifying competition. nicknamed the whiz quiz competition and the g.e. college bowl, it has been a tradition in the fort worth independent school district since 1978. this challenge of knowledge requires middle school and high school academic teams to accurately answer brain stretching questions faster than their opponents obviously may 31rk these eight students traveled to washington to compete against other schools across the nation in the larger junior national academic championship. i would once again like to commend the students on a job well done and encourage them to continue exceling in their academic pursuits. i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, according to last week's jobs report, nearly

12 million americans, 12 million of our fellow citizens, are out of work. mr. chabot 13k that's unacceptable -- mr. chabot: that's unacceptable. the american people need better than a constant barrage of job-destroying regulations out of washington. they deserve better than a government that spends us into debt. the american people deserve solutions that will create jobs, today. and that's what the house republican plan is all about. we have a plan to grow our economy. and secure the future for all americans. to expand opportunity, not government. we want to rein in massive government spending and reform the tax code to make it simpler and fairer for all americans. that's the house republican plan. it's one of growth, prosperity and unlimited tuns for all americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute and rhett re--- revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> can you blame the american people for being dissatisfied with washington? the most crucial issue facing our country is the need to create jobs and grow our economy but what do the american people see? a government run amok. house republicans know how important it is to hold the government accountable to the people. after all, that's where power comes from in a democracy. and we know that we can't grow our economy with massive, bloated bureaucracies standing in the way. mr. hultgren: house republicans are devoted to clearing out the underbrush, cutting waste and fixing broken government. it's our constitutional duty to provide effective oversight of the executive branch and that's what we're going to do. that's how we secure a good future for all americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. >> madam speaker, regretly i -- regrettably for the american people they see a nonrecovery recovery. millions of our fellow citizens remain unemployed and underemployed. mr. hensarling: it's why house republicans are working to make the tax code fairer, flatter, simpler, more competitive, so america can go back to work, but so far we're hearing silence from the white house. we want red tape reform that is strangling small business people. madam speaker, i had one small business person in my district say, you know, it's like the federal government doesn't want me to succeed. we need to unchain them. we need to cut the red tape and allow them to create jobs and finally the affordable care act is not affordable for our american citizens. it is not affordable to small businesses, it is harming job creation, costing trillions of dollars, potentially millions

of jobs, plups want to repeal it. this is an agenda to help create jobs for america when americans need growth, hope, and opportunity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: on july 1 of this year, student loan interest rates are set to double. it doesn't have to happen and it won't if president obama and senate democrats choose to work with house republicans on a bipartisan solution. unlike the senate, the house of representatives successfully acted to stop the unnecessary rate double. the president and senate should follow our bipartisan example and build off the smarter solutions for students act. despite the white house whiplash on this issue, our legislation is very similar to president obama's own budget proposal. it will prevent rates from

double, allowing students to benefit from low rates and protect low and middle income students. the house acted in a way that satisfies the president's original criteria for a long-term market based plan. we welcome the senate to get on board. preserving this problem just to be able to campaign on the issue year after year would be a true disservice to every student and taxpayer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: madam speaker, by direction of the house republican conference i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 257, resolved that the following named members be -- ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection the

resolution is agreed. to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later today. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling:, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2167. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2167, a bill to authorize the secretary of housing and urban development to establish additional requirements to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the home equity conversion ortgage insurance program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentleman from washington, mr. heck, each will control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record on h.r. 2167, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i rise in support of the bipartisan h.r. 2167, the reverse mortgage stabilization act of 2013, introduced by our colleagues, mr. heck of washington, and mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. h.r. 2167 provides authority to the secretary of housing and urban development to make administrative and policy changes to the f.h.a.'s home equity conversion mortgage program through a mortgagee tter rather than the arduous 18-month regulatory process. the bill sets condition that the f.h.a. can only use this

new authority when immediate changes are necessary to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the program. and, madam speaker, immediate changes that improve the fiscal safety and soundness of this program are exactly what is needed. in our efforts in this congress and on the financial services committee to help create a sustainable and competitive housing finance system for americans, our committee and its housing and insurance subcommittee have held a series of hearings this year on the financial problems at the f.h.a. in its current form, f.h.a. is most definitely an impediment to a sustainable and competitive housing finance system. because of this the financial services committee has been working to examine needed reforms to f.h.a., reforms that goeson its fiscal solvency and address structure flaws at the f.h.a. madam speaker, there is one thing we know certain about

f.h.a., it is not just broke regrettably, it is bailout broke. it is not just my conclusion. it's the conclusion of the actuarial study of the f.h.a.'s mutual insurance fund. the government fund that ensures the f.h.a. single mortgages. the study shows, quote, the economic fund as of f.y. 2012 is negative $13.48 billion, end quote. the same actuary report states that the economic value of the home equity conversion mortgage portion of the fund which h.r. 2167 addresses, is, quote, negative $2.8 billion. again, bailout broke. madam speaker, h.r. 2167, which has strong bipartisan support, is a first and modest step in stemming substantial losses from f.h.a. provides the tools needed to

allow the agency to immediately address serious and significant flaws with its home equity conversion mortgage program that threaten hardworking taxpayers with being forced to fund yet another washington bailout. that's why, madam speaker, i urge the passage of h.r. 2167 today. the secretary of h.u.d. has testified that h.u.d. needs this authority from congress to make immediate changes. s i said, without h.r. 2167 it could take up to 18 months for these vital needed changes to be made during which the f.h.a. would continue to lose money. i thank the bipartisan supporters and authors of this bill for their leadership, for their support in order to help protect taxpayers and improve and reform the f.h.a. program, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: thank you, madam

speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heck: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to begin by reciprocating and thanking the gentleman from texas for his leadership on this issue and perhaps as notably the gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership and cooperation and collaboration and helping to solve this important problem. i thank you, sir, and more importantly i thank you on behalf of the many people who will benefit as a result of our action here today. madam speaker, currently the federal housing administration underwrites 100% of all reverse mortgages. let me say that again. the federal housing administration underwrites 100% of all reverse mortgages, and that is a program that is deeply troubled as enumerated by the capable chair of the financial services committee. and so if you believe as i do that reverse mortgages are a financial product that actual he ought to be available to some people but under appropriate circumstances and

conditions it's all the more important that we enact h.r. 2167 today and not just because tv pitchmen -- see if i can name them all, james garner, henry "the fonz" winkler, pat one and robert wagner do so, but because this legislation is very important. so the question is, as with all legislation, what's the problem? there's probably no better statement of the problem than is represented in this chart which says that 7% of the f.h.a.'s portfolio are related to reverse mortgages. but 17% of their portfolio that is underwater is attributable to reverse mortgages. that is a stark, salient representation of why this legislation is needed. and i might add, frankly, that if you were to compare reverse mortgages across all the --

just the going forward 30-year fixed mortgage market, it would be even more stark. this is against all products. so what's the solution? as the chair indicated, it is to give the f.h.a. the authority through mortgagee letter to adopt certain reforms. and the alternative is to wait and to endure the arduous rulemaking process. i had an agency in the office the other day for which i had a problem and i sought solution through the rulemaking process, i asked them what's the minimum amount of time that would be required for adoption of rules and they indicated the best of circumstances would be 18 sighed, paused and said more like 24 to 36 months. madam speaker. i think it would require a

financial assessment of potential borrowers to ensure that this financial product is suitable for them. there are others as well. it may reduce the amount of funds upfront granted to the borrower and it may require escrow for provision of payment of taxes and insurance, something that's not uncommon in the mortgage industry. but the financial assessment portion that very well may ensue as a result of passage of this legislation, it's important to note that that is a tool and technique used by the v.a. when it underwrites reverse mortgages. let me say that again. the v.a. uses this tool to underwrite reverse mortgages. and how much of a problem does the v.a. have with reverse mortgages? zero. zero. so we know with virtual certainty that this solution, which the gentleman from pennsylvania and i bring to you today will solve the problem. finally, het me just say this

is a two fer. we don't often get the opportunity for a two-fer. this will extend some consumer protection. insofar as there are consumers who will not purchase or who will purchase under different terms and conditions this product in a way that will not render them at risk as they are today. and secondly, it will inarguably improve the portfolio of the f.h.a. ladies and gentlemen, i ask you to vote yes and i thank both the chair and the committee as well as the gentleman from pennsylvania and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania , mr. fit patrick, the vice chair of -- mr. fitzpatrick, the vice chair of the oversight and investigations committee and the lead co-sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2167, a bill i

was very happy to work with the gentleman from washington on this matter. it's an example of us able to work in a bipartisan way on important legislation that will in fact institute good commonsense reforms on an appropriate program for america's seniors. this bill is very simple. it allows h.u.d. to institute some needed reforms to the home equity conversion mortgage program, better known as reverse mortgages. using an expedited process. the legislation requires that any changes to the program being made using the authority contained in this act must be done to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the reverse mortgage program. there is concern on both sides of the aisle about the financial health of f.h.a. last november f.h.a. released its annual report to congress on the financial status of the mutual mortgage insurance fund. there are some significant shortfalls and the financial

services committee and the chairman have been diligently examining the problems there and what actions that congress may need to take. the home equity conversion mortgage program is one of those areas that must be reformed, and this bill is going to help the h.u.d. secretary to take some critical steps to ensure the long-term stability of that program. mr. speaker, it is important at we make improvements to f.h.a.'s program to make sure that reverse mortgages remain an option for seniors. when used appropriately, a reverse mortgage can help seniors pay off debts, deal with unexpected expenses, including health emergencies, and improve or maintain quality of life. it can be an important financial tool for folks like robert and fran of bristol township in my district who because of this program had access to equity that they used to make their lives in retirement better, their lives, robert and fran, and the lives of countless seniors throughout pennsylvania that i've spoken

to who were able to maintain their home and stay in their home well into their retirement years when they had no other options to do so. f.h.a. insurance makes these products widely available while protecting against predatory practices. by using the authority granted in this act, the secretary of h.u.d. has suggested reforms that protect taxpayers by making the program more fiscally sound while increasing consumer protections for seniors who may want to take advantage of a reverse mortgage. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from washington on this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: i yield back the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i'm ready to close. i just simply want to thank my two colleagues for their bipartisan leadership on this bill, something that's going to be very important to sustainable housing, the fiscal

sanity of the f.h.a. and for a number of our consumers as well. i urge the house to adopt the bill and yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2167. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 634 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 634, a bill to provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the commodity exchange act and the securities exchange act of 934, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, each will control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record on h.r. 634, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. h.r. 634, the business risk mitigation and price stabilization act of 2013, is bipartisan legislation. it will help provide america's job creators with greater certainty so they can invest more in our still struggling economy and help those who remain unemployed or underemployed. again, when our so-called recovery has produced four million fewer jobs in the average recovery of the last 70 years, clearly nothing is more important than finding solutions that will help grow

our economy and create more and better jobs for those who need them. americans want and deserve a healthier economy and a more secure future. but regrettably, all too often washington either inadvertently or on purpose creates piles and piles, mountains upon mountains of unnecessary red tape for our entrepreneurs or small business people and our job creators. quite often, madam speaker, this institution makes the goal of economic growth and job reation more difficult. but the bipartisan bill before us today is more helpful, it's needed to protect farmers, ranchers, millions of businesses across the nation from unnecessary red tape that would divert their resources and time away from the activities to make their businesses successful and thus create more jobs. one manufacturer told the financial services committee earlier this year, mr. thomas

deese who works for a chemical manufacturing company in pennsylvania, he testified before our committee that without h.r. 634, manufacturers and other end users of derivatives, which is legislation deals with, would be forced to comply with unnecessary regulation that he said, quote, means less funding is available to grow their businesses and expand employment, unquote. now improving the dodd-frank act, regardless of its relative merits, it did at least make clear that congress intended that manufacturers, ranchers and again main street businesses, that this bill is intended to address, that they would not be subject to certain regulations regarding margin requirements for end users of derivatives. still, edespite congress' clear intent on the subject, such requirements have been proposed

by washington regulators. and so, resulting legislation would contain provisions that would modify and provide greater clarity to the dodd-frank act regarding the intentions of congress in dealing with the end user exemption. we have heard from federal reserve chairman bernanke who stated before the senate banking committee earlier this year that because the dodd-frank act is, quote a very big, complicated piece of legislation, unquote, that regulators like the federal reserve needed, quote, clarity from congress on what, quote, to do about end users. so h.r. 634 provides that clarity by stating clearly that end users of derivatives shall be exempt from the onerous margin requirements imposed by title 7 of the dodd-frank act. as i said earlier, madam speaker, this is a bill with

very strong bipartisan support. the financial services committee reported this bill out of committee on a recorded , let me repeat that, madam speaker, the financial services committee reported this bill out of ommittee on a recorded vote of 59-likewise, the agricultural committee approved this bill on a voice vote, meaning it has received in opposition in either committee. this is substantially similar legislation that was overwhelmingly passed by the house last year with 370 bipartisan votes. in closing, i want to thank our colleague, agricultural committee chairman frank lucas for advancing this bipartisan bill in which our committees share jurisdiction and i also want to thank the bipartisan supporters of this bill, particularly the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, and the gentleman from michigan, mr.

peters, who are outstanding leaders in our committee as well as the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre, lead thornse agricultural committee. h.r. 634 is sound policy and it is necessary to ensure that regulators do not further hurt our economy by forcing manufacturers, ranchers, and main street businesses to needlessly divert resources away from creating more and better jobs for an american public that is more than ready for them. madam speaker, i urge the house to approve this needed borne legislation today and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time, the gentleman from michigan. >> i ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from north carolina, a member of the agricultural committee, mr. mcintyre, be allowed to control the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank and i now yield myself such time as may you -- as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

> i rise in support of the price stableation -- stabilization act of 2013. mr. peters: i appreciate the work of mr. grimm and his willingness to work across the aisle. i would like to thank our partners on the agricultural committee, representatives austin scott and mike mcintyre. we all worked together on this bill to keep cost down for families and small businesses for a wide range of goods and services like groceries, air travel and autos. i would like to thank chairman hensarling and ranking member waters ofor -- for their support on this crucial legislation. while this bill improves financial regulation, this is truly a main street bill. derivative end users represent a broad cross section of businesses across our nation from farmers worried about the price of fertilizer to manufacturers concerned about fluctuating interest rates. businesses in all of our

districts use derivatives to ensure they pay a reasonable price for the products they need and keep consumer prices stable no matter what happens in the financial markets. this bill is about protecting businesses across michigan and the united states that rely on derivatives to respond -- responsibly manage risks. during consideration of the wall street reform, there was a bipartisan recognition that regulations to curb excessive risk taking in the financial sector should not stifle job creation in the agriculture or manufacturing industries. michigan is a state that builds and grows things and i will continue to fight to make sure that we always will be. and let me be clear as a member of the conference committee that approved the final version of dodd-frank act, i can say with certainty that wall street reform was not written or signed into law to hinder the hardworking folks building autos or growing apples. end users, companies that use

derivity contracts to offset legitimate business risk, were specifically exempted from the clearing requirements and congress did not specifically direct regulate dwrors require end users to post margin. our bipartisan bill clarifies congressional intent that nonfinancial end users are exempt from the dodd-frank requirements. forcing nonfinancial end users to post margin could have several negative consequences. unnecessarily increasing prices for consumers across a range of goods, slowing job growth here in the united states, and driving businesses to foreign, less transparent derivatives marks. our bill passed the house last year with overwhelming bipartisan support because it is about protecting jobs and clarifying congressional intent. and it passed the house financial services committee earlier this year as we heard with unanimous bipartisan support by a vote of 59-0. this bill will ensure

congressional intent to protect our manufacturing and agricultural industries as is carried out. i look forward that crucial legislation passing the house later today and urge my colleagues to support it. i will continue to work to get the business risk mitigation and price stabilization act signed into law and i thank you and reserve the plns of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield four minutes to the the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, an outstanding member of the financial services committee and co-author and lead republican on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, madam speaker. i proudly rise in support of this legislation, h r. 634, the business risk mitigation and price stableation act of 2013. h.l. 634, as noted by the chairman and my colleague, it's truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. and it has passed this house

previously in the 112th congress with overwhelming support. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. peters, for work on this with me. it's an extremely important issue and it's a pleasure to work across the aisle as well as my colleagues on the agricultural committee, mr. austin scott and mr. mcintyre. i want to thank chairman hensarling for his leadership on this issue as well as for his leadership as chairman of the full committee and also thank ranking member waters. will 4, as noted, clarify the intent of congress under the dodd-frank act by providing an explicit exemption for the true commercial, nonfinancial end users of over the counter derivatives from having to post margin on derivative transactions. this is important for job creation and economic growth as well as price stabilization for average consumers. despite clear legislative history to the contrary, regulators continue to

misinterpret the dodd-frank act as giving them authority to impose margin requirements on true end users. h.r. 634 will ensure that nonfinancial end users remain exempt from that margin requirement and that the regulators do not, i emphasize they do not exercise authorities that were not specifically given to them by congress. if margin requirement were imposed on nonfinancial end users, it would harm our economy by diverting working capital from productive uses such as reinvestment into the business or job creeigs -- or job creation, and this legislation prevents this and that's also extremely important to protecting american jobs and our economy. true end users are firms and companies that use derivatives to manage their various financial risks. for example, firms use these products to protect against changes in interest rates if they've sold floating rate debt as well as to protect their

profits earned in other currencies from variations in foreign exchange markets. the benefits of the legislation are not limited to american businesses. but extend into the heart of our communities. this bill will help keep consumption prices stable for hardworking families and for chidges -- for individuals. if true nonfinancial end users were required to post margin, their hedging costs could become so high they could abandon the practice. this would lead to larger variations in consumer price farce whole host of products which could be said things like groceries and airline tickets and would create economic instability. last study that's shown that imposing a 3% margin requirement on over the counter derivatives held by the s&p 500 companies could cut capital spending by 5.-- by $5.1 billion to $6.7 billion and jobs.30 to 130,000 u.s.

with the unemployment rate at 6.7%, this is a consequence that can't be overlooked. in closing i ask that my colleagues once again support this commonsense, bipartisan, pro-jobs legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for -- the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this issue along with congressmen grimm, mcintyre, hensarling and many, many others. i rise in support of h.r. 634, the business risk mitigation and price stabilization act. this bill would make it easier for companies to manage their risks and plan for the future by clarifying that dodd-frank does not require end users of derivatives to post collateral

on these trades. congress never intended for these companies to be required to post collateral on their derivatives because that would needlessly raise their costs and could even discourage companies from prudently managing their risks. but because of a drafting error in dodd-frank, end users of derivatives currently face uncertainty about whether the regulators will require them to post collateral. both federal reserve chairman ben bernanke and c.f. -- and cftc chairman gary ginsler stated they support this bill because it would provide them with much-needed collar toin whether their rules on posting collateral should apply to end users. this bipartisan effort to correct a problem with dodd-frank is not an attempt by opponents to weaken the safeguards of the bill, but rather an attempt to make good legislation even better.

congress needs to step in and ensure that companies that use derivatives to manage their day-to-day commercial risks are not subject to unnecessary collateral requirements. it was reported out in a very strong bipartisan vote from the financial services committee and for these reasons i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support h.r. 634 and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, another leader on h.r. 634. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, chairman hensarling. like many of think colleagues i'm confident the house will pass h.r. 634 and present this deserving bill to the senate, again. after years of inaction bordering on dereliction it's time for the senate banking committee to act on title seven for potentially irreparable and

self-inflicting harm is inflicted on our economy. unaddressed end user requirements could lock up billions of dollars that would otherwise be put to productive use, collars that could go to hiring new employees this bill, the business risk mitigation and price stable -- stabilization act of 2013 is a jobs bill. without this bill, company treasurers complying with new margin requirements have to pull money from somewhere, choking off money for other business areas. and those bys are those that use the tools to avoid risk, not speculation. they didn't contribute to the crisis of 2008 yet going against what congress intended, regulators are roping them in. i hope this bill passes with a large majority so it cannot be ignored by the senate -- mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hultgren: my constituents need this legislation. ourar