and also give the opportunity for people to be exonerated from crimes they are accused of as opposed to, like you mentioned, either being misapplied or not used appropriately or just kind of being ignored. host: tom taylor is assistant managing editor of "united states law week," a publication of bloomberg bna. here is here is one of the stories he has written. thank you so much for being with us. we now go to the house of representatives. they will take up the lead term abortion bill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 18, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ted poe to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. 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 imited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. bera, for five minutes. r. bera: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about core american values, values of liberty, values of freedom, values of individual rights. mr. speaker, today a bill is going to come before this body that is a blatant attempt to take away those individual rights, those individual freedoms, freedoms that are core to who we are. this bill aims to take away individual decisions from america's mothers, america's sisters and america's daughters. this bill is a traffic vessey and a slap in the -- traffic vessey and a -- travesty and a slap in the face and this bill criminalizes doctors for doing

our jobs. now, i'm a doctor. core to the oath that i took was to sit with my patients, answer their questions and empower them to make the decisions that best fit their circumstances, their individual circumstances, their family circumstances. that's core to the oath every doctor in the united states of america has taken. that's core to my job. now, the bill that's coming to he floor today takes those values and they slap them in the face. they put the government right in the middle of my exam room, and the government has no place in between the doctor and the patient. what we should be debating is how we empower our patients, how we promote women's health, how we try to keep women healthy and help them plan

their pregnancies, how we empower families. as a husband and the father of a daughter, keeping women healthy is extremely important to me and helping empower parents and families to plan those pregnancies is not only smart but it's good medicine. legislation i'm introducing later this week, the women's preventive health awareness campaign, will direct the department of health and human services to educate women about the importance of the preventive wellness examine. this is a piece of legislation that will help address the issue of planning families, of planning when you want to be pregnant. it will help address the issues of undiagnosed heart disease. it will help us diagnosis cancer and it will save thousands of lives. i would urge my colleagues in this body and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join

us in this bill. it is not only smart medicine, it will get to the core of empowering patients, empowering women and empowering families to make the decisions that best fit within the context of their lives. that's the oath that i took as a doctor. that's the promise that i make to all my patients, and that's the oath that we take in this body, to protect those individual freedoms and those individual rights of all americans and of all america's women. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski, for five minutes. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address the importance of protecting life. when i'm home in indiana spending time in our communities, the importance of strong values and hoosier common sense continues to rule the foundations of our

families. i believe it's critical for congress to act today to protect human life and treat women and the unborn children with the protection they deserve from the dangers of late-term abortions. we're talking about the next generation of moms and grandmothers, of aunts and sisters and our loved ones. there is not a price that can be put on the value of an innocent human life. i've been a strong supporter of life and for defending the unborn and feel it is our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable who cannot protect themselves. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 1797, for the sake of protecting the unborn from late-term abortions and, mr. speaker, i yield back he balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. speaker,

later today the judiciary committee will mark up the first immigration reform bill offered by the republicans in the 113th congress. since election day, no member of congress has done more to highlight and praise republicans for their new spirit of bipartisanship on immigration than i. i praise our committee and subcommittee chairmen for their new tone and the republican-led immigration hearing. when the republican party chairman said they had to stop pushing latino voters away i said, right on, rand. when your former candidate for vice president and budget committee chairman came to chicago to talk about immigration reform, i brought him to the barrio so they could applaud his commitment. judge carter and i were in san antonio to talk about immigration reform deep in the

heart of texas where we agreed on more things than we disagreed. he and i have met almost every day since january with a small bipartisan group of colleagues to fashion a bill that both parties can embrace. and it's hard work for both parties. on the other side of the aisle, it's hard to talk about immigrants in a new way when your party, its platform, its candidates, it's talk radio and tv personalities have talked disparagingly about immigration for years. when you talk about gang bangers and rapists, it's hard to switch gears quickly. most republicans in this body up until this week were singing about bipartisan work on immigration reform has been difficult on my side of the aisle too. i always fought for universal health care coverage, but discussing health care coverage for undocumented immigrants and their families, even in the context of a legalization program, were they pay their full taxes, submit fingerprints and pay huge fines is a nonstarter, not only for

republicans but democrats unfortunately alike. i've advocated for the lgbt rights from my days as a chicago alderman, but to work in a bipartisan manner it's off the table. to keep discussions with republicans going, i am told that diversity visa program that brings in immigrants from africa and ireland and around the world who diversify our immigrant pool, that program is eliminated, no discussion, in the name of bipartisanship. siblings, brothers and sisters of u.s. citizens will no longer be able to come to america sponsored by their family members. and the fees and fines we charge, billions upon billions on immigrants so they can be here legally, that will fund more drones, fences, border guards and more enforcement on the border that is as secure as i've seen in american history. but we'll do it. i ask my republican colleagues, when is it enough? but i want to keep things moving forward, so i hold my tongue, work within the bipartisan process and stay with the group.

i speak well of republicans who have partnered with democrats on a serious bipartisan bill this year. a tough but fair bipartisan bill is moving toward passage, and our tough and far but bipartisan house bill is near complete. we're putting aside partisan bickering to solve a policy for the american people. just in time for the fourth of july, we get red meat politics for the barbecue and partisan politics on immigration. now, your side of the aisle wants to nationalize it. sheriff of arizona is slapped by the american courts by denying u.s. citizen and legal immigrants. no matter. let's cannonize him. police in local government wants those in their community to be able to call the police if they're a victim of crime or a witness to crime. too bad. republicans in washington know

better than your cops, prosecutors and mayors at home. they'll cut your federal funding unless you ok local immigration enforcement. when 500,000 latino citizens turn 18 every year and become potential voters, republicans seem hell-bent on lining up and jumping off the demographic cliff. while our country demands solutions and leadership, republicans are feeding the monster red meat as if their calendars already read 2014. as a democrat i should probably stand back and watch. if you want to hang yourself on the immigration issue, who am i to stop you? but as an american i have to tell you what i really feel. your country needs you to step away from the partisan red meat and fear mongering that has defined your party on immigration. come back to your senses. do not push forward a bill that criminalizes every immigrant family and makes everyone think twice before they call 911. you are better than this. america needs you to be.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes, mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, in the early 1760's, the royal governor of massachusetts began issuing writs of assistance as general warns to to search for contraband, evidence of smuggling. these warrants were challenged in february, 1761, by james otis who argued forcefully that they violated the national rights of englishmen and were in fact, quote, instruments of slavery. a 25-year-old attorney who attended the trial later wrote, every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away as i did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. then and there the child independence was born.

that young lawyer was john adams. to him that's the moment the american revolution began, the general warrants were the first warning that his king had become a tyrant. the founders specifically wrote the fourth amendment to assure that indiscriminant government searches never happened again in america. in america in order for the government to invade your privacy or to go through your personal records or effects, it must first present some evidence that justifies its suspicion against you and then specify what records or things it's searching for. last week we learned the federal government is today returning to those general warrants on a scale unimaginable in colonial times by seizing the phone and internet records of virtually every american. we're told that this is perfectly permissible under passed supreme court rulings because the government is not monitoring content but only the records that are held by a third party.

but if phone records are outside the protection of the fourth amendment because they're held by a third party then so, too, are all of our effects. that means property of keeping storage, the family member, backup files on your computer maintained on another server, all are subject to indiscriminant search. in fact, many of the general warrants served long ago in boston were on warehouses owned by third parties. even if we were to accept this rationale, then that third party, for example, the phone company, ought itself to be saved from general warrants like those that have apparently scooped up the phone and internet records of every american. it's argued with orwellian logic that it's permissible to seize these indiscriminantly since they are not searched until a legal warrant is issued by a secret fisa court. but if general warrants can produce the evidence for

specific warrants, well, isn't the fourth amendment prohibition of general warrants then rendered meaningless? and all we know about the secret fisa court and its deliberations is that out of 34,000 warrants requested by the government, it has rejected only 11. hardly a testament to judicial prudence or independence. . we are told the information will be used only to search for terrorists. does anyone actually believe that? just a few months ago the director of national intelligence brazenly lied to the congress when he denied the program existed at all. just a few weeks ago we learned this administration has taken confidential tax information belonging to its political opponents and leaked it to its political supporters. is there anyone so naive as to believe the same thing won't be done with phone and intereffect records if it suits the designs of powerful officials? a free society does not depend

on a police state that tracks the behavior of every citizen for its security. a free society depends instead on principles of law that protect liberty while meating out -- metting out certain punishment to those o oppose it. it means we do catch is brought to justice as warning to others. this is true whether we are enforcing the laws of our nation or the law of nations. indeed, if we had responded to the attack on september 11 with e same seriousness as we responded to pearl harbor, terrorism would not be the threat it is today. ours is not the first civilization to be seduced by the siren song of ben nevillent all powerful government. but without a single exception every civilization that has succumbed to this lie has awakened one morning to find the

ba nevillens is gone. this is our generation's wake-up call and we ignore it at extreme peril to our liberty. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. e chair recognizes mr. cardenas, the gentleman from california, for five minutes. mr. cardenas: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cardenas: thank you, mr. speaker. it's with great pride today i recognize a chee. s of three high schools in my district, 29 of california. i want to begin by congratulating athleteo high school by achieving a 92% graduation rate and providing a gold standard for the los angeles unified school district. opening in 2006, this school achieved this enormous fete in seven years -- feat in seven years. they have the highest graduation rate of any traditional high school in all of l.a. unified

school district. this is a testament to all the hard work and support this community has invested in its children and their future. i would also like to recognize departing principal dr. calvo for her unrelenting vision. she'll be dearly missed and i hope her successor will tint strides made on this campus and the surrounding neighborhoods. i also like to recognize the l.a. unified school board member, larry martinez, who went to one of the high schools i'll recognize this a minute. she's been a strong advocate for this community as a school board member for the last four years. i commend the teachers for their commitment and dedication to their students, the parents for their love, support, and involvement in their children's lives, and the students who have risen to the challenge and proved it is possible to reach your dreams. bragging rights are not limited to just aleto high school. located less than four miles away, the sun valley high school wildcats can be proud. i would like to congratulate and commend the sun valley high

school robotics team for being named the national champions of the 2013 mini urban challenge competition. sponsored by the united states air force research laboratory, this challenge requires high school students to design and erate robotic car to autonomously navigate a model city. on june 1, the sun valley robotics team competed against nine regional champions in washington, d.c., and became the national champions. i want to recognize also principal paul rosario for his leadership and continued support of the team. mr. hicks and mr. yamagata for guiding and assist the team through the project and victory. the volunteers who invested on their own time and money thopet team as well. and the students for their perseverance and creativity. the 29th district high schools doesn't end there, and just in the classroom. i'd also like to congratulate san fernando high school's baseball team on winning their

second city championship in three years. on june 1, they defeated cleveland high school 2-1 in dodger stadium to claim their championship for a second year in a row. under the leadership of the coach, the tigers have done a phenomenal job of playing as a team and putting in the extra work to build a successful program at san fernando high school. all these students are a great source of pride to our community and prove that hard work, sacrifice, and commitment pay off. they are the future of our country and also of the san fernando valley. i think it's important for us to understand that today i stand not only to congratulate the young people but all of the adults that surround them who have given themselves and gone the extra mile to make sure that we bring out the best in our children. i'd also like to take a point of personal privilege to welcome our little ambassador who is here to talk to me and other members about children's hospitals. you might know him as little bader as he was in a commercial during the super bowl game. he's with me today again as a

young ambassador showing leadership at his young age. i think it's important for us to recognize moments like this that our young people, our young americans, are teen -- our teenagers may be little kids, but you, too, can be a leader at any age. you don't have to wait until you are a little older like us. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at a time when bipartisanship is rare in washington, this past week a bipartisan majority of members of the united states houches -- house of representatives together called upon the centers for medicare and medicaid services, c.m.s. to delay further implementation of the competitive bidding program with the durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orr thodics and supplies.

flaws have been identified in the bidding program which is being used to procure these goods and services for those facing life changing disease and disability. we do not oppose competitive bidding. in fact, we want to ensure that true competition takes place. medicare plays by the rules that they set for the program. today i stand beside 226 of my colleagues here in the people's house and urge the administrator of c.m.s. to do the right thing and use her authority under the current law to delay implementation in order to fix these abuses before moving forward in 100 areas nationwide on july 1. mr. speaker, the administrator has to know the clock is ticking. and if unchecked the failure of this program will be on her watch. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, i rise to pay tribute to a man and friend of mine who spent most of his adult life being actively engaged in the processes of social advocacy and public policy decisionmaking. and who ultimately became the mayor of gary, indiana, and a national progressive political leader. rudy clay was born in alabama. after the death of his mother, was brought to gary, indiana, where he was raised by his two aunts, miss lucy hunter, and miss daisy washington. who started him to attending church, which he did for the rest of his life. he graduated from the gary roosevelt high school and attend the university of indiana at bloomington. married his wife, miss christine swan, was drafted into the army, served his time, was honorably

discharged, went into the insurance business, worked for prudential and state farm insurance companies, and ultimately opened his own company, the rudolph clay insurance agency, of which he was proud. rudy like many people of his era became actively involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's which led him to electoral politics. he was elected to practically everything that one could possibly be elected to in lake county, indiana. from committeeman to mayor of garery. 1971 rudy was elected to became the first african-american state senator in the state of indiana. in the senate he was the deciding vote that made it possible for a african-american to be elected a lake county commissioner. he was the first

african-american to be elected county recorder in the state of indiana. he was county chairman of the lake county democratic party. he served as the lake county commissioner. he was the chairman of the gary precinct committeeman's organization, mayor of his beloved city, and played a key role in the obama victory in indiana in 2008. rudy was a great family man, loved by his neighbors and friends, loved by the members of his church and all of those with whom he came into contact, loved by his associates in the lodge, and the average person in gary, indiana, and any place around it knew rudy clay. and loved him for his great work. i convey condolences to his

wife, ms. christine clay, his son, rudy jr., his brothers and sisters and other members of his family. when one sums up his presence on earth, they can simply say of rudy, a job well done. a life well lived. we salute you mayor rudolph "rudy" clay. i thank you for being my friend. may your soul rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, every day throughout the united states criminals commit crimes against good people. some of those cases make the news. the news usually spends a lot of time talking about the defendant . there's a trial. justice occurs. and the world moves on. many times, unfortunately, in

our culture, there is a victim in that crime. and the victim after the trial is just ignored in some cases. some of those victims are sexual assault victims. back in the day when i spent 30 years at the white house in houston as a prosecutor and judge, i saw a lot of them. in fact, i keep up with some of them today. and the crime affects them a lot of ways. some lose their jobs. some are hurt physically and emotionally. and they don't have any money. and this is not a new concept. years ago under the reagan administration, congress recognized this problem, this issue, about the fact that many victims after the crime and after the trial they just disappear quiet lives of desperation. and culture community doesn't keep up with those people. during the reagan administration, congress decided

here's what we are going to do. we are going to make criminals who are convicted in federal court pay into a fund and that fund is used to help crime victims. what a great concept. make criminals pay the rent on the white house. make them literally pay for their crime by putting money into a fund that goes to crime victims. and that's the victims of crime act that passed. the federal judges, god bless them, they are nailing those criminals and they are taking a lot of their money away from them and putting in about $2 billion a year into that fund. and today we have a situation where the fund is over $11 billion. money criminals pay to help crime victims. but here's the problem. that money isn't going to crime victims. crime victims only get about $700 million a year out of that

billion.11 two billion coming in every year. the government gets an 8% cut. that makes it less. and there is a cap. the government sets the cap on that money. remember, this is not taxpayer money. it doesn't belong to anybody except to the victims of crime. and that money is used and offset by -- for other purposes. it goes to other programs in commerce, science, and justice. probably good programs. and now with sequestration we hear that fund may be completely cut off this year for crime victims because of some squirrely math somebody is using saying sequestration should apply to the crime victims fund. that's nonsense. meanwhile, throughout the country, victims organizations, shelters, groups like casa who represent kids in the courtroom when their parents are not doing the right thing by their kids, and many programs are barely

keeping the lights on because they don't get enough money even though money is available and it's sitting there or being offset for other programs. so, what needs to happen is this -- one, raise the cap every year. $2 billion is coming in every year. we ought to at least allow the victims to have a billion of that, maybe $2 billion, because it keeps coming in. and more importantly, what we ought to do is take that money and put it in a lock bobbing concept. it's a very simple concept. that the criminals pay into the fund anti-fund should go only to crime victims and crime victims programs. it shouldn't go to other programs in the federal government even if they are good programs. . it should go to the quiet, silent victims who are hurt today because of the crimes being committed against them.

and it just seems nonsense to me. we have the money available. it's not taxpayer money. we can help victims of crime get their lives back together, and it's not happening because somebody else wants crime victims' money. so let's put this in a lock box. mr. costa from california and have i sponsored legislation to say, look, it's not the government's money. it's victims' money and it ought to all be spent to help victims and victims' programs throughout the country. groups that are doing a great job to help rescue crime victims because of crimes that have occurred against them in the past. that is justice and, mr. speaker, just is what we do in this country and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is in the process

this week of dealing with the most important bill that almost no one has paid any attention to. i'm talking about the farm bill. it goes far beyond dealing with needs of rural and smalltown america. it's going to involve, with all likelihood, given the way the past farm bills have exceeded their budget estimates, it's very likely to be over $1 trillion. the farm bill is actually getting better slowly but surely, but it has a long way to go to get the most value out of this bill for america's farmers and ranchers, for the people who eat and for protection of the environment. mr. speaker, this week i will be offering some amendments that i hope will be made in order that will try and coax more value out of this process. the first and foremost, based

on legislation i've introduced, the balancing food, farm and environment act, which strengthens the environmental quality incent sks program to have -- incentives program to have stricter payments so we're not putting too much money into any one project and would disallow spending for large factory farms but provide additional support for farmers who want to transition to production techniques that use anti-obama des or administration -- antibiotics and stretch those conservation dollars further. and an amendment that would reform the conservation reserve program to direct more money to conservation enhancement and continuous conservation programs to target the most environmentally sensitive and re-enroll higher priority lands, providing more stability for farmers, better results for the taxpayers and more

flexibility at the state area. third and perhaps most important, legislation i'm co-sponsoring along with mr. chaffetz, would apply reasonable limits for means testing to crop insurance. the crop insurance program needs greater scrutiny by congress. it is an area where the federal government provides huge subsidies to insurance companies to sell and service the policies. it pays most of the indemnities when there are losses and generous subsidies to make the premiums cheaper for farmers. today in "the new york times," there was an article that talks about the fraud and waste in the program that really we haven't zourd in approximate -- zeroed in. there are clear abuses that we need to pay attention. and mr. mcgovern had an amendment, if you slash nutrition, at least have the rate of fraud and abuse down to the same level as food stamps.

i think that's a good proposal. but to the amendment i have introduced with mr. chaffetz, it would put a limit of $750,000 beyond which we would no longer subsidize the crop insurance for the large agri business. it's not they couldn't have crop insurance, it's just the taxpayer will not be on the hook. it's important for us to start paying attention to the crop insurance program. as we theoretically we get rid of direct payments, although we're still going to have direct payments for cotton, and i have an amendment on that as well, it's important to look at the overall structure of this program. we don't want to be in a situation where we're actually going to end up paying more for crop insurance than the cost of traditional commodity programs proposed by the house and the

senate and there are not incentives to be able to use it fficiently and to root out fraud and abuse. i would strongly urge my colleagues to look at amendments like i've proposed and others, look at how the farm bill, the most important environmental, nutrition and economic development for small towns and rural america can be done better. it's past time to have a farm bill that is environmentally sound, that is cost-effective and targets areas that need the help the most. this ought to be an area where we can follow through on the desire to get more value out of tax dollars while we help more people. i look forward to the debate this week. i hope it is robust and i do hope we will be able to debate the wide range of these issues that would make this farm bill much better. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, for five minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week the house debates the farm bill that eliminates snap benefits for 37,000 minnesotans and nearly two million americans. last week i hosted a listening session with congressman ellison on how this will impact our state. we heard from faith leaders, service providers, state and county officials, snap recipients young and old. evelyn, a senior, told us she was terrified she would lose her snap eligibility under the house bill. and i quote from her, without the help from snap, i wouldn't be able to buy the healthy foods, fresh fruits and vegetables to help keep my diabetes in check. without snap, she said, i don't know what i would do. for millions of seniors like evelyn, snap is a lifeline. it ensures they don't have to choose between medicine or buying food.

and for america's children, they should be able to attend school and be able to solidly concentrate on their studies because they had something to eat. i urge my colleagues to reject this immoral cut and to remember the words of patricia law, director of st. paul council on churches. no more hungry neighbors. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. mr. reed. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about an issue i deeply care about, and that issue is the affordability and ability of students across america to get a college degree. mr. speaker, as we face this impending student interest loan cliff on july 1, i want to share with you and with the american public a personal

story. i'm the youngest of 12. i have eight older sisters, three older brothers, and my mother and father made a commitment to each other that each and every one of us would get some sort of the clerk will designate the amendment degree or advanced degree. my father passed when i was 2 and there were six of us left in our household that my mother had to raise on her own. and i went to college, went to law school and i watched in her eyes the fulfillment of that promise that her and my dad made to each and every one of us. now, not all of my siblings went to law school. one got a vocational degree cutting hair working in arizona. i have a law degree and there is a whole mix in between. as we deal with the issue of student loan interest, we need to make sure that we stand for the students, that we stand for the next generation because a

college degree and a higher educational pursuit will arm those young men and women for generations and empower them to control their own destiny in their own hands. so i come today on my side of the aisle and say to my colleagues, thank you for joining us in passing a bill in the house that would avert the interest rates spike that will be coming up on july 1. and i ask my colleagues to join me and to demand that the senate take action. as you see, mr. speaker, the senate has failed to pass a piece of legislation in the senate to avert this fiscal cliff to our students across america. to me, mr. speaker, that's just not right, that's just not fair. we need to do better, and what we need to do is pass a reform out of this body and out of this congress that takes the

student out of this political theater that has become the student loan interest spike every year that we have to deal with. the proposal in the house to me makes sense. it's a commonsense market-based approach that will lower interest rates on 70% of the loans that students receive in going to college and in advanced degrees. i ask the senate and i ask my colleagues to continue to join us to put pressure on the senate to say enough is enough. we care about students. let's address this issue so they don't see that interest rate spike that is coming down the horizon and say to the white house, sign this legislation once and for all, that removes the students from the political debate that this issue has become. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wilson, for five minutes. mr. speaker, as the

house begins consideration of .r. 1797, i rise in solidarity with the women of the world. i rise in outrage at yet another attempt to control our bodies and make choices for us instead of allowing a woman to make their own choice with their doctors and their families. first of all, it's the woman's body, not yours. she alone bears the burden, the pain and joy that it brings. please stop trying to regulate our reproductive organs. they belong to us. to the men who feel so inclined to tell women what to do, i

ask, have you ever had a menstrual period? have you ever felt unbearable pain during childbirth? will you be there for a mother who needs prenatal care, formula, diapers? will you support head start programs? will you focus on creating good public schools? will you reform foster care and stop greasing the prison pipeline with unwanted children? there are grandmothers living in trailer parks and public housing, single handedly raising millions of grandchildren. where are you when grandmothers trying to feed jerome, shakita, pedro, heather and john? the only time i see you is on the floor of the house trying to take away grandmother's social security and attacking her medicare and food stamps. grandmother doesn't have a car, so she has no i.d. so she can vote you out of office. for some reason, you care about a baby right until the minute it is born into the world, and

then you disappear and desert the children you claim to protect and love. shame on you. stop the cradle to grave neglect and abuse. stop the shenanigans and bring to the floor bills that will create jobs, jobs, jobs for the american people. and mind your own business and regulate your own body. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's great to come down on the floor to just take a few minutes to talk about energy policy in this country. the republicans on this side and many of my friends across the aisle, we do believe and speak about an all-of-the-above energy strategy. and that means all of the above. first -- and the speaker would

not be surprised that i would come down and talk about nuclear power and how that in the whole line of the processing of the fuel to the electricity production there are good-paying jobs, there are challenges we have to overcome which is the high level nuclear waste, the spent nuclear fuel and the location of that because that is a cost burden on the industry until we get that solved as we promised. another major important energy production for us is coal. i come from southern illinois. a lot of coal mines there and electricity generated by coal. it is low-cost fuel and it provides great jobs for our coal miners. it also is high-paying jobs in rural america for the power plants in the location. the governor of the state of illinois signed what they're laiming to be the most intense and precise fracking bill in the nation, which will allow us

to look for, locate, recover through the fracking process, we believe, crude oil to the extent of which we haven't seen since world war ii which also will ease our reliance on imported crude oil. also, part of this debate is the renewable portfolio debate and some of that will be wind and solar, but don't forget the agriculture input through the r.f.f. which would be biodiesel, whether that's by soybeans or by reformulated cooking oil or beef towl or theth national debate, whether that is the sell lowsic, the future generation of ethanol production or the corn-based production as it is. it's a great time for energy debate in our country because we are now at a point where we are demanding less and producing more, which would allow us then to at least stabilize and hopefully lower

our prices while we then continue to become be a energy exporter. we are in a hearing today in the energy and power subcommittee talk about exporting coal, exporting liquefied natural gas. that will be revenue and jobs to this great country. for many of us we haven't seen times like this in a long time and it's for us in the public policy arena to make sure we don't mess it up by increasing regulatory demand and other hurdles which will inhibit the entrepreneurs and the risk takers from taking advantage of this great opportunity. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1sh the chair declares the house in reces >> the house crops up morning our returning and noon.

lawmakers will vote on a bill sponsored by trent franks that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. they also begin work on the farm bill. live coverage of the house when they return at noon. on theate continues work immigration bill and also tightening border security votes on a number of amendments and 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. that is on c-span2. on your screen is the director of the nsa. he is testifying this morning on the data collection programs. you can follow that on c-span3.

we are going to take you to the senate banking committee. a hearing on reverse mortgages. the sustainability of reverse mortgages. that hearing got underway at 10:00 a.m. we will show you as much of the hearing as we can until the house returns at noon. 62, 63, 64., the table gives us the percentage of value at the particular interest rate used their fees ay have to the loan deducted. they could say i want to take it all or take six monthly payments

or any combination thereof. >> is there a maximum amount ?hat hud guarantees >> the lesser of the actual value of the property or the fha limit.l loan 00,000,home is worth $4 that's the value. is the maximum. 150%.at is >> just a couple of final questions about taxes and insurance. to would it not make sense

include as in a typical mortgage payment, taxes and insurance that seniors to not find themselves at the end of the day hit with his challenge? >> we are not collecting mortgage payments on a monthly basis. the reverse mortgage does not have a monthly payment feature. there would be a significant cost to putting that in place. it raises a number of other issues. >> the collection of it would have a cost. >> if they borrow does not pay their insurance, that is a default situation. the lender is required to advance the taxes on behalf of

er and ask them to get in touch and create a payment plan. the lender is required to request permission to accelerate because that is a default. if we would move to weigh in borrow mrs. the march payment, where are we? what does that mean? june, they miss again. there is a lot of questions about how you handle defaults. the reverse mortgage counterpart is what we call a set aside. we do set asides for other

things. if there is $15,000 of repairs, we set aside some of the funds that would be available and the owner can use those funds to make those repairs. what is being discussed is a set aside. it remains to be seen whether you do that through the life of the loan. then you are reducing the benefits of the borrower. at least you have some other resources to work with what you try to mitigate the situation. fundslly work with the available through a set aside. >> how do others feel about the set aside? >> we would want consideration for those who are enrolled in

property-tax relief programs. it is more economical to stay in the home. for those that are eligible, we would want to make sure that is a part of the set aside formula. >> we would support having it set aside, a special for the homeowners to pay the property charges, so we would support that as well. concept --rt the concepts.upport the aree of the highest defaults where the, new york, property taxes are high. you may eliminate the loan

proceeds entirely. we believe that should involve public input. >> i want to make it crystal clear that every bar has the first go through counseling before they qualify. you support counseling and you said counseling is not enough to protect seniors. i work on the -- reverse mortgages and we conducted a survey last august. it was sent to thousands of older advocates nationwide. we received responses from well reverse mortgages counselors. there is tremendous pressure from lenders when consumers

walk-in to their office on a variety of issues, some of which we have highlighted in our testimony today. one is to pressure to remove the often younger spouse from the title to the house so that the older spouse can get a larger amount of proceeds. those homeowners are inundated with pressure from the lenders and other originators to see that this is a good idea. they are hardly understand that the risk of doing that is that when the spouse on the mortgage dies, the younger spouse would be effected. -- evicted. ifeowners are counseled and they follow up two or three months later, they are oftentimes surprised that the homeowners expressed an intent

to take out an adjustable rate but instead they won with the fixed rate option. they are surprised the homeowners later on are not able to keep up with the property taxes and insurance. we think that strong and effective counseling is necessary, we think that is not enough and there should be more protections added to the program to protect consumers in every aspect of the lending process. >> any other views on that issue? required aspect of the counseling. the counseling has a protocol that is required. the interview on tool was implemented recently. the intent is to inform and ask questions with regard to the potential borrowers' intent and

there is a 60-day follow-up. if we take a closer look and spend some time going through the data, that could informed some of the indicators in regard to the defaults. a closer look at some of the data collected through counseling so that we can begin to develop a data driven understanding of the risk factors. the -- i likee of to follow-up. her indication is this is something lenders are leading borrowers into inappropriately. the issue is a subject of a lawsuit right now that is being handled by the aarp foundation.

our organization has filed an amicus brief on this. we have done quite a bit of research. we have filed along with our brief a number of affidavits from borrowers who have said they have done this for any number of reasons. they have decided to remove a spouse from title. oftentimes one member is under 62 years old but they are still facing foreclosure on their current mortgage. the have to remove title to be able to stay in. a largeres they need amount of money. one member could be 66 and another is 72 and there is more money available at the age of 72. this is a conscious decision that gets made for purposes of generating the larger amount of

money. we do not take it lightly. lenders for the most part do not like doing this. we encouraged them to discuss this with their counselors. we have them write a handwritten note explaining that they are doing this and why. issue. tough there are a lot of reasons people do it. a is not necessarily sinister thing that goes on within the industry. >> which brings me to one of three last questions. not onlyg seems to be a necessity to qualify, but so important. do we have enough resources for counseling for people in the

country? >> unbiased counseling is essential. this is unique in that the counseling is required. we need adequate funding to be appropriated to ensure that we , low costst available counseling for consumers. in the current marketplace, it is a mixed result. some of the counseling intermediaries to charge, and you get what you pay for. they charge with various rates. for a counseling session that is intended to be robust. our counselors are proud of the fact that counseling sessions often take 90 minutes or more to go over the full range of issues and implications. with limited amounts of housing capacity dollars, our capacity has shrunk. therefore, some of the

counseling intermediaries must charge, and that does play implication. i wanted to weigh in from a different perspective. housing counselors are not allowed to give advice or make recommendations to borrowers. their role is to educate. lenders have the ability to recommend and suggest and say whatever they would like to the borrower, but the counselors are restricted in that regard. it is important to understand counseling is a vital tool, but hands are tied as to what they are able to say to a borrower. 90but if they give them a minute session in which you talk about the range of considerations you should have, i would think, would be pretty significant. ,f we were to use your terms

untie the hands of counselors, we would also have to worry about a counselor or counselors who would want to lead it henschel borrower to a certain product. >> right. i mean, it's a mix. anyone is welcome to answer. as the housing market rebounds, is that going to take off some of the pressure, or create greater opportunity? obviously, you have referenced several times that part of the challenge has been a housing market that has lost value. what does that mean for this program? >> certainly, recovery in housing values helps shore up the value of the funds. -- this is unlike a

mortgage where the balance is going down. in a reverse mortgage, there is no payment, and the balance is going up. to the extent that the home appreciates over time, you have a greater cushion, higher collateral. of course, rising home values will put the fund in a much stronger position. >> finally, for any of the panelists -- i have my own idea of what this is, and i think it is pretty universal, since we are developing a record -- why is a program like this a good public policy? what does it mean to all of us as a government to allow people to age in place, versus maybe end up having to seek either public housing or a nursing home, or an assisted living to which the government would many times

contribute. hecm really is an example of a public-private success. providesance protection to all stakeholders. the ability to allow a modest individual to supplement their fixed income allows them to age in their home, as most seniors staves off orten avoids institutional care, which often has implications for medicaid. it is a cost-efficient solution that allows our seniors to stay in their community, mixing public and private support. >> is the only recourse on a reverse mortgage loan the equity in the home? there is no personal liability upon the death or departure of a person from their home?

>> that is correct. it is a non-recourse loan. >> i did not get an answer to the average amount of a reverse mortgage, but what is the cost of a reverse mortgage, as compared to the cost of a traditional mortgage? ,f i borrow $100,000 on my home or i am a senior and get an advance of $100,000 in a reverse mortgage transaction, are the interest rates comparable? are the origination costs similar? >> they are very comparable. they will have similar costs associated with them. there is an origination fee, which is formulaic, a formula set by the congress, with a maximum of $6,000. the firstpercent of 100,000 dollars of value, with a cap of $600,000.

there are normal costs for andaisal, title recording, interest on the loan. the interest rates, depending on what type of loan people choose, will be more or less comparable. >> are interest rates fixed or variable? ask the consumer has a choice of fixed or variable -- >> the consumer has a choice of fixed or variable. fannie mae holds those in portfolio. as they received a mandate from congress to begin reducing assets, they backed away from the reverse mortgage business. hecm put in place, which offered fixed rates, which seniors, by and large, seem to want to get. 'sople who remember the 1980

was 16.8%.rtgage people may be afraid of variable rates, although it may be more advantageous for the borrower. here is the catch. to get a fixed rate, the borrower has to agree to take down all the funds upfront. loan.a closed-and they can pay it back at any time, but they cannot borrow it out again. it is not open-and credit. it is closed. the reason is, if i am an lender and you say, i want my full $250,000 today, i know my cost of funds. i could give it to you. if you say, i want to take $50 today, that i will come back in the future for some amount, i cannot make a loan like that on a fixed rate on today's

interest rates. if you want the line of credit option, it needs to be variable rate. if you want the fixed rate, you need to take it all out up front. consumers are drawn to that. the execution is better, providing revenue to the investor, to the originator. as a result of the investor demand for those products, there is an ability to waive all the fees to the borrower. origination fee, perhaps the upfront mortgage insurance premium that needs to be paid in the current market -- if someone was to take the fixed rate, full brawl loan, they might find they do not have to pay any of those fees. >> are almost all reverse mortgage is at the time of death or departure from your home, as compared to somebody prepaying that loan? >> i do not know the current

statistics. at the moment, people seem to be staying in their homes longer than they have historically, because it had been harder until the last couple of months to sell homes. , as many ended in a mobility event, a move out, as did in a mortality event, a death. >> can you make a reverse mortgage without the fha backing? do banks do that? is that legally permissible? >> yes, it is legally permissible. as i said, there had been a proprietary market emerging in 2007, 2008. my guess is we will begin to see that return later this year, or as we get into 2014, assuming home price stabilization continues. >> two states regulate these mortgages?

>> many states do have state laws that are laid on top of federal laws. all of ourhank witnesses for a pretty good, complete review of the issues related to hecm. i think this is an important public policy issue we need to preserve and enhance. we look forward to the house legislation. ours has a little more specificity about some of it, but the upper teeth -- the opportunity to move forward maybe one we have to consider. the record will remain open for two additional days. with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> on the senate floor, debate continues on the immigration bill. senator dick durbin speaking at this hour about gun violence. bee president biden will talking executive actions on gun violence. house willpan, the gavel back in at noon eastern today. later today, they will debate and vote on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. we will have live coverage of the house when they return at

noon, and a preview of the debate this afternoon from a capitol hill reporter. chile rovner is the health policy correspondent for npr. why are house republicans taking up a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy? >> we are frankly not sure why they are taking it up on such a quick action. this bill was introduced a couple of weeks ago. we were not sure it was going to come up on the floor at all. it was definitely going to be marked up in the subcommittee. why they are bringing it to the floor with such alacrity is a question nobody is sure of the answer to. >> there has been a change to the bill since it was approved in the judiciary committee last week. why was this language added? >> leaders announced last friday that they would be adding an exception in the bill for rape and. originally, this was going to be a ban on virtually all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the exception of

pregnancies that threatened the life of the woman. now they are adding language for abortions in the case of rape and, because there was a bit of a dustup at the markup. -- sponsor of the bill said he said that abortions in the case of rape were rare. he explained that what he meant was that abortions after 20 weeks resulting from rapes were rare. but democrats took that language and really ran with it and made quite a fuss about it. they decided they would add that language to the bill. an amendment failed at the markup. they also decided not to let congressman franks manage the bill on the floor. it will be managed by marcia blackburn of tennessee, who is not even on the committee the bill emerged from. >> what you suppose that is happening? ask the republicans are very sensitive.

last year, todd akin, who was running for senate from missouri, made comments about the unlikelihood of getting pregnant after a rape. he ended up losing his race, even though he was a prohibitive favorite at the time. i think when congressman franks made that comment, even though it has been taken a little bit out of context, i think they were very sensitive to that. i wondered why marsha blackburn would be managing this bill, and she is not even on the committee. there is not a female republican on the judiciary committee. i did not have a woman to manage the bill. they had to turn to someone else in order to get a woman republican to manage the bill. pre-k's what has been the reaction by democrats? >> democrats hate it. , it say on the face of it is unconstitutional, which republican technology. the supreme court has been clear that abortion cannot be banned before fetal viability,

which pretty much everybody agrees is 23 weeks and later. this pushes it back to 20 weeks. an appeals court a few weeks ago struck down an arizona law. they are hoping, by pushing this bill forward, in addition to making a statement about how much americans do not like abortions later in pregnancy -- they are hoping that if it should pass and get to the supreme court, unlikely given the makeup of the senate, and the president is unlikely to sign it -- what should it somehow get to the supreme court, they are hoping perhaps the supreme court would use this law to change its mind about this. as it stands now, this does violate supreme court precedent on abortion. >> let us go back to the markup. what was that debate like? >> it was pretty testy. there was a similar bill last only applied to the

district of columbia. a number of states have passed these kinds of laws. , isstification, they say that scientists have suggested that 20 weeks of is when a fetus can begin to feel pain. that is a disputed theory. but that is the justification under which these bills are being passed. the senate looked at a bill that would apply only to the district of columbia. they put it on the floor, but under suspension of the rules, which required a 2/3 majority. it did not pass. this bill only needs a simple majority, so it is considered more likely that this bill will pass. but democrats at the markup -- we have seen similar at the years in the judiciary committee, republicans talking about how horrible abortion is and how much the american public

does not like it, democrats thinking about the women and the constitution. the supreme court currently guarantees a woman a right to choose. these are difficult situations later in pregnancy, particularly women in difficult medical situations. >> the bill is coming up tuesday, and you have said you think it will pass. who are you watching most closely? be a fairlys to republican/democratic split, although there are democrats, particularly from the south, but not exclusively -- democrats who vote against abortion. there were many, many democrats who were worried about abortion votes, and wanting to maintain an antiabortion voting record. one of them got voted out in 2010, so there are not quite as many as there used to be. it is largely a partyline issue, but not exclusively. there are considerably fewer

republicans who vote with abortion-rights backers these days. that has become a much rarer sight. i would love to see if there are any of those. i will be interested in this particular bill, because it does, on its face, violate supreme court precedent. it will be interesting to see how many republicans will go out on a limb, stretching the bounds of how far you can go on abortion bill and still be considered within the realms of, i think, what the public really supports. >> what is likely to happen in the senate if this bill does pass the house? wax it is hard to say. i do not think the senate would take up the bill as is, that i could see someone trying to attach this to some other bill, trying to force some of this, democrats from some of these -- democrats who are in tough take a vote ond

this to make this a difficult vote. >> how about the obama administration? what is their take? >> it would be hard to imagine the president supporting this bill, or doing anything except promising to veto it. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> late monday, the administration released their statement of administration policy, saying the administration strongly opposes the bill, which would restrict women's health and reproductive rights, and is an assault on a woman's right to choose. women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and health care, and government should not inject itself into a decision best between a woman and her dark her. debate on that bill this afternoon. they are coming back in at noon. we will have live coverage. they will also begin debate on

the farm bill. the farm bill will be considered at the same time as the abortion bill. we spoke this morning to a member of the house appropriations committee about the debate coming up on the farm bill. >> our guest is a democrat of connecticut, on the appropriations committee. guest: it is wonderful to be with you. host: debate opens on a new five-year farm bill. lay out the basics, and what your concerns are. principal concern is, i have supported farm bill's in the past. , worked on the bill in 2008 particularly the nutrition title of the bill. i have a district which is -- deals with specialty crops. interest in that area are organics. my concerns with this farm bill are particularly around food

$21p cuts, which are almost billion. if i can set the stage for a moment, we are in the midst of what is the great recession, and during the great recession, the food stamp program, which is the most significant program, nutrition program that we have, has literally kept people out of poverty, has helped people not to fall into poverty. it has also worked to feed hungry children. we have one out of seven people in the united states today that are on food stamps. 47 million people. almost half of them are children. they are seniors, disabled. so it is a very serious issue. people are struggling in this economy for their survival. we have high unemployment, wages

down. income has not increased. why do we want to take this moment and throw more people into poverty and increase hunger? it does not make sense. in the past, there has been a bipartisan coalition. they came together around the issue of hunger, and addressing that issue. this farm bill woodcut $21 billion in the nutrition program, in the food stamp program. it would throw 2 million people off of the program. one million of whom are children. because there is a link between the program and school lunch, school breakfast,, that means over 200,000 youngsters will be kicked off the program. it is not right. host: here are details about snap, the supplemental assistance program, also known as food stamps. these numbers come from march of

this year. that is 23 million households. $75 billion in total last year. in terms of what people get, it ,s $133 on average per person $270 per average per household. we see the number at 47.7 million now, up from two years ago. guest: that has been a driver and the genius of the food stamps program is the number of people who participate go up when times are bad and when times are good the numbers go down. and the numbers are coming down. i was interested in some of your statistics because the fact of the matter is that you have to be below hundred 33% in poverty. ash below 130% of poverty in the united sense -- united states.

so many people are on food stamps and the minimum wage workers, many of whom are women. $4.10 per day. why do we want to cut $21 billion in this program and at the same time not make cuts in other areas. crop insurance, farm subsidies, it is wrong, it is just wrong. host: a republican from wisconsin said i want poor people have food, i want people to eat well, but we went to close down loopholes and there are other ways to come about savings. guest: where do you want to close the loopholes? do you want to close the polls in the food stamp program? the program is a 3.8% error rate. i defy you to go to any other agency and see those numbers.

department of defense. the irs. let me give you a significant example which is in the farm bill let me lay this out for you, u.s. taxpayers pick up over 60% of the cost of the premium for the crop insurance. u.s. taxpayers -- that does not include administrative costs which would pick up as well -- administered of costs which would pick up as well. you have a lot of individuals who received at least one intelligent premium subsidies, -- at least $1 million in a premium subsidy. they are protected, statutory away. interestingly enough, there is no cap on the amount of money you can receive. there is no income threshold.

all those other pieces apply to food stamp recipients. it is income based. there is a cap. and there is an asset test. if you want to close a loophole down, let's go to this program. there was an article this morning that talked about the massive fraud in this program. let us close that loophole before we see two kids, sorry you cannot have a school lunch or breakfast. host: when the house begins the farm bill this month, critics say conservatives are overlooking problems and other farm programs. the overall farm bill, let's look at the house version. funding of over $900 billion

over five years and as our guest mentioned, $20.5 billion in cuts in the food stamp rogan and they are also looking at savings of over 32 going dollars over 10 years. could you vote for that version? guest: i don't believe that we ought to be cutting benefits for people. the farm bill which i have supported in the past, is a safety net. that is for both farmers and for people who are foodstamp beneficiaries. while direct payments have been cut, they have expanded crop insurance to protect people who may have lost a direct payment in addition to which they have put into place something called a price lost program with a deal

if commodity prices go down. both house and senate have this policy and it. which means we are going to try help themarmers whole. on the safety net issues. you can be for that, but why then -- because there are other ways to address the issues of for farmer. the foodstamp beneficiaries have no where else to go. no place when they are off the program, they are off the program. at the end of this fiscal year all foodstamp beneficiaries will see a cut in their benefits. that is at the end of the economic recovery program which included additional information for the foodstamp program. you are now then going to add this.

you are going to hire lawn to-- pile on to the people who are the most vulnerable in our society. host: looking at a side by side comparison of the senate version and the house version, cuts to nutrition in the red and the cut to commodities. let's go to the phones and hear from melissa in ohio, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my comment, i am actually a former food stamp receiver myself. i put myself through college and i'm now working professionally and not on any type of assistance. myis program really helped me. feedback was more with the aim of restructuring the program. when i received benefits, the amount of assistance i received was significantly higher than i

would spend, the budget for groceries. i was wondering if they could have minor cuts while assisting people who really need support. i speak from extremes and it was helpful to me. guest: first of all, i am glad you can speak personally about the program. often times as your situation bears out, it is a bridge to help people go on and live their life and deal with the economics for the future. the issue here, the benefits were frozen in 1996 and the welfare bill and have not been addressed until 2008 farm bill. you take a look at what food prices are and costs are. i think one can always take a look at whether or not a program should be restructured in some way, but i would not look at lowering the benefit level for people.

i think we are in a tough economy at the moment. unemployment is at 7.5%, people have watched their wages go down and their incomes are not increasing. people today using food stamps thought they would never have to use a program to allow them to help to feed their families. we can take a look at restructuring but i do not believe the benefit level should be dropped. caller: thank you for taking my call, let me get the straight. you want to raise our health care, you want to make more money for healthcare and you want to give a program -- that we should trust you, that we should believe that you will restructure it.

you know people are taking advantage of this program. host: are you talking about food stamps? caller: yes. when you think this money is coming from? guest: thank you for calling, i appreciate the call. i disagree with your premise. lately, you are saying that with the affordable care act we are moving into the invitation of the program, but already you are looking at places like california, vermont, oregon, and other states that are talking about lower treatment costs for people.

already, there are people that are taking advantage of the fact that they can get insurance for a child that in the past has been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. people that are taking advantage of screenings and they do not have to co-pay. i challenge your premise at the outset that health care is rising areas. the affordable care act was to make sure people could afford coverage. with regard to the foodstamp program, it is not broken. again, your premise is wrong. there was a 3.8% error rate in that program. take a look at the crop insurance program, loaded with fraud with people that are making millions of dollars and no one seems to care. they have more than probably three squares a day and when we

have people who are on food stamps, you have to see where your priorities and values live. host: here is a reply, government audits share hundreds of millions of dollars are due to fraud in a variety of farm for brands including crop insurance. the rate of food stamps on the other hand has declined sharply in recent years. this is a problem holding up the farm bill passing. we have seen extensions given repeatedly, but this is a make it or write it moment. they want to give me five your outlook going forward and not just do it piecemeal.is this enough? guest: what you need is enough. the fact of the matter is that it is a $20 billion cut.

to a nutrition program. that in and of itself should preclude moving forward on this bill. there are a lot of good things in this bill. there are also a lot of problems with the bill.this is not the only one. there is a dairy issue which has caused a great divide within the republican ranks, let alone republicans and democrats. secondly, there are issues around sugar, and crop insurance. you have the heritage foundation that came out in opposition to it because they do not believe that the cuts are deep enough. there are several problems with this piece of legislation, food stamps being one. host: our guest is sponsoring an amendment that would restore cuts it to the foodstamp program as well as other initiatives in the farm bill.

just the fraud question, what needs to be done about that? guest: we have to address that in this farm bill and take a look at what the percentage of the taxpayer dollars that we are paying for this company. many of which have parent companies offshore for tax purposes. they go offshore and they get a tax break for doing that. what are we talking about here? let's address those issues, we can do it in the farm bill. host: let's from robert, an independent. caller: i appreciate your efforts in working on the waste of money of our government. in massachusetts we recently had an audit and there is quite a bit of fraud in this program that you support. i think it should all be cleaned up and maybe it's not just for stamps, but all of the waste that is happening in our government.

one question i have is that you say it is a $20 billion cut in the foodstamp program, what is the cost of the overall program? is $20 three percent, 2%? or is it a decrease in the overall increase that we will have by sequestration? guest: let me address the first part of your question. let me repeat as well, the error --te in the food stamp program because there's been very serious attention paid to decreasing the fraud and abuse in this program. the error rate has been brought down to 3.8% which is one of the lowest error rates which exists in any federal agencies. i concur that if we are going to look at the program integrity let us look at it government wide.

in the farm program i mentioned wee crop insurance program. have other agencies where there is waste. let us cut back in other programs where there is waste. you can take a look at the department of defense, you can take a look at several other agencies and look at where we need to spend -- not spent less money, let's cut out what is waste in the system now. i concur with you on that. this is a cut in the program that would -- that takes 2 million people off of the program. again, to qualify for this program, you have to be under for four people,

that is $22,000 a year to feed people. a million of the 2 million are children. you are looking at some of the most vulnerable people in our economy today. it is in fact a cut, it is just not a cut of an increase. it would cut the program back. which in my view at this time is a very difficult economy and food stamps -- you'll take my word and take a look at literature about how food stamps has helped people get out of poverty. why would we want people to fall back into it? we've had the highest rate of poverty that we have had in the united states today. host: democrat representing the

third district on her 12 term. she served as ranking member on health and labor services and also served on the committee of agriculture, rural develop and the fda. our next caller is bob in virginia democrat. caller: hi, i just want to say i strongly agree when she talks about spending priorities. if president obama would --mediately cancel this 100 $100 million trip to africa, we could take all of that money and feed all of the hungry children in america. guest: well sir that is your point of view, we believe in the global economy today and we have international responsible it is and i take great pride, whether it was either george bush, barack obama to travel to other countries so that they can put

our nation and what our values and priorities are. that reinforces the united states as the leading country in the world. host: we saw senator bob menendez state of the union on monday and he talked about syria. since our last caller it brought up international issues. he said the president is headed in the right direction. [video clip] >> i am certainly forgiving the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. the wherewithal to have a fighting chance to lead us to a better political solution than we are today. and to do that expeditiously. you have to consider other options with your allies as to whether or not you might consider ripping up air fields so that assad's air force cannot

take off. that is an example of a limited action i could ultimately produce a big benefits. you can't just simply send them a peashooter at the end of the day or else our national security interests -- time is not on our side and vital national security interest will not be pursued. host: do you agree with the senator that more should be done in syria? guest: i think we should take a look at what we should do, there are so many pieces. there are the rebels, there is al qaeda, and we need to clearly understand the when we take action what the consequences are. host: what will you be watching for in terms of next steps? guest: i think it looks like the

talks with russia is going well. that there is agreement to disagree, and i hope that at the g8 one can establish some collective determination in moving forward so there are not unilateral decisions. i agree with the president's move forward. i think that one has to think about, as i will, of escalating that effort and increased support as to who we are arming and the again, what are those consequences. host: turning to the inside, it's as both are struggling to decipher, obama's conflicting signals. what is your opinion on how the president is handling the privacy issues? guest: on the privacy issues, i think we have to come to a balance. we have, in my view, since 9/11

-- whether it is the indefinite detainees, or the electronic surveillance -- i think we have moved in the direction of not protecting civil liberties. to that end, i voted against legislation. i think we need more transparency. we need to know what they are doing and i think we need to be upfront about what this is all about. we are beginning to get answers, but get those answers on the table and explain to the american people why we are doing what we are doing. host: barbara on the republican line, good morning. caller: i am a senior who has been on food stamps since -- has not received any

food stamps since january. have a recording. you cannot get them if you go to often. they give you a referral to most of the churches, and that is good, but there are are no things soap, sugar, milk. you just get canned goods, or whatever. i was already coming out of a in which i had lost down to 97 pounds. they keep giving you the runaround, saying it is a new system, and you are still not getting anything. host: ok, barbara. here is congressman delauro. guest: one of the things we didn't mention is that so many the people who are food stamp recipients are seniors or disabled. i don't know the circumstance in south carolina and what is happening with the office, but i think that, again, sometimes

people will say we can't afford to do a food stamp program at the federal level, and we should rely on churches, faith-based groups, etc. they help out but they cannot do they have spoken up loud and clear to say they help in any way they can, but they can't do it,, and i think your commentary is a good one. people are trying to access a program in order that they might eat, and my gosh, we have such an abundance of food in the united states. why is it that we are looking to look at our deficit and cutting it back with a 21 -- almost $21 billion cut in what is life- giving to people, and that is food? i think we need to rethink what

we are doing. we are trying to take a look for you and asked my colleagues in south carolina what might be happening there with the agency and why it isn't being responsive. host: pensacola, florida, independent caller. you are up. caller: good morning. the lady called earlier and she said her assumptions were wrong. i would like to turn the tables on you and say that it is your assumptions that are wrong in so many things. you are essentially asking -- or legitimizing illegal plundering, appointing other people to pay for someone else, corporate welfare, personal welfare. no one wants to see someone start on the street, but over 120 trillion behind in unfunded liabilities for all the other social security, medicare part d, $1 trillion in the hole from

last year. and i want to hear your answers, but you just can't keep spending money and keep calling it investment and play on our heartstrings -- certainly no one wants to see a kid starve, but i don't see any of these people on welfare -- i've lived in areas where it is not a good place and i know they are on entitlements. hardly anybody grows their own food. the lady who called a little bit, she was whining about not getting her cut. host: what would you have her do, elderly caller who suffered from pneumonia? caller: it is not someone's responsibility, necessarily -- the family helps out. host: let's get a response from the commerce woman. guest: let me ask about the crop insurance program -- do you think it is equitable that we pay for over 60% of the cost of the premiums for those

beneficiaries? we pick up the administrative cost of that program. do you think it is right that 26 individuals that at least a million dollars in premium subsidy and they don't have to talk about their income? they don't have to talk about what assets they have? they don't even have to farm the land or deal with conservation programs on that land. do you think that is fair? host: that's going to have to be a lingering question. he is no longer on the line. representative rosa delauro, democrat of connecticut, cochairs the steering and policy the farm bill hits the the house floor this week. thank you so much for your time.

guest: thank you very, very much. it is a pleasure. tost: coming up next, we turn the second week of debate on the immigration bill. bill in theow that u.s. senate, over on c-span two. be amendments dealing with border fencing, requirements for children adopted overseas, and others. here on c-span, the house devils aim for initial debate on the farm bill. dabblesa -- the house in forhe house gavels initial debate on the farm bill. >> why are house republicans taking up a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy? >> we are frankly not quite sure why they are taking it up on such quick action.

>> why they are bringing it to is floor with such alacrity a question no one has an answer to. originally, this was going to be a ban on virtually all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the exception of pregnancies that threaten the life of the woman. they have added exceptions in .he case of rape and the sponsor said he thought abortions in the case of rape or rare. he said that he meant abortions

after 20 weeks resulting from rapes were rare. but democrats took that language and ran with it and made quite a fuss about it. they decided they would add that language to the bill, even though an amendment failed at the markup. they also decided not to let congressman franks manage the bill on the floor. it will instead be managed by marsha blackburn of tennessee, not even a member of the judiciary committee, the committee the bill emerged from. >> why do you suppose that is happening? >> i think the republicans are very sensitive. last year, todd akin, who was running for senate in missouri, also made comments about the unlikelihood of getting pregnant after rape. he ended up losing his race even though he was a prohibitive favorite at the time. republicans are very sensitive to this sort of thing. when congressman franks made that comment, even though it has been taken a little bit out of context, they were very sensitive to that.

i wondered why marsha blackburn would be managing the bill when she is not on the committee. i realized there is not a female republican on the judiciary committee, and did not have a woman to manage the bill, and had to turn to someone else to get a woman republican. wexler has been been the reaction from democrats? >> the democrats hate it. they point out, among other things, it is unconstitutional, which republicans acknowledge. the supreme court has been pretty clear that abortions cannot be banned before fetal viability, and pretty much everybody agrees is 23 weeks and later of pregnancy. since this pushes it back to 20 weeks, an appeals court a few weeks ago struck down a similar arizona law. that what they are by putting this bill forward, in addition to making a political statement about how much americans do not like abortions later in

pregnancy -- what they are saying is they are hoping that if it should pass and get to the supreme court -- unlikely, given the makeup of the senate, the fact that the president is unlikely to sign it -- should it somehow get to the supreme court, they are hoping the supreme court would use this law to change its mind about this. as it stands, this does violate supreme court precedent on abortion. >> let us go back to the markup last week. what was the debate like? testy.as pretty the senate judiciary committee has been through this a lot. a similar bill last year only applied to the district of columbia. a number of states have passed these kind of laws. is justification, they say, that scientists have suggested that 20 weeks of pregnancy is when a fetus can begin to feel pain. that is a scientifically disputed theory, that that is the justification under which these laws are being passed. the judiciary committee had a

bill that would only apply to the district of columbia, which they can do. they had to put it on the floor, 2/3they required a majority, and it did not pass, did not get the super majority needed. this bill only needs a simple majority, so it is considered much more likely that this bill will pass. democrats will, at the markup -- we have seen similar over the years at the judiciary talkinge, republicans about how horrible abortion is and how much the american public does not like it, democrats thinking about the woman and how the constitution and the supreme court guarantees a woman a right to choose, talking about some of the difficult situations, particularly later in pregnancy, particularly in difficult medical situations. >> the bill is coming up tuesday. as you have said, you think it will pass. who are you watching most closely?

>> this tends to be a fairly republican/democratic split, although there are a lot of democrats, particularly from the south but not exclusively, who vote antiabortion. this was a big issue when the affordable care act came up. many democrats were worried about abortion, and wanting to maintain an antiabortion voting record. any of them got voted out in 2010, so there are not quite as many as they used to be. it is largely a partyline issue, but not exclusively. there are considerably fewer republicans who vote with abortion-rights backers these days. that has become a much rarer sight. i would look to see if there are any of those. i will be interested in this particular bill, because it does, on its face, violate current supreme court precedent. it would be interesting to see how many republicans will go out on a limb, stretching the

bounds of how far you can go on an abortion bill and still be considered within the realms of, i think, what the public really supports. >> what is likely to happen in the senate if this bill does pass the house? >> it is difficult to say. i could see someone trying to attach this to some other bill, and perhaps try to force some of the democrats from some of these -- some of the democrats who are in tough races to have to take a vote on this, to make this a difficult vote. i can definitely see that happening. >> how about the obama administration? what is their take? >> it would be hard to imagine the president supporting this bill or doing anything except promising to veto it. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> go to gettysburg.

think about pickett's charge. to think about the carnage thee, the lives lost, great battles before at fredericksburg and the wilderness, and chancellor bill. you talk about antietam. you talk about shiloh and manassas. all of these battles for people defending a way of life for slavery, what have you. all of that bloodshed to settle this contradiction. and we won. we have our country. ,nd i like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks, do we deserve this? sacrificerve this for a country that we have? and are we living up to it?

>> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. , june 30,age, sunday starting at 9:30 eastern. >> the u.s. house, gambling and gaveling in momentarily. about pregnancy. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer today will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend bradley hales, culpepper, virginia. the chaplain: let us pray. lord god, maker of heaven and

earth, i thank you and praising for the blessing of this day. i thank you for our country. i thank you for the laws in government which you instituted for order and honor. and i thank you for our active military and veterans who have sacrificed over and over to make us free. father, as a nation, as individuals and as a government, we must repent and always come back to you for truth, wisdom, forgiveness and hope. let us follow your word from the prophet joel. return to the lord, your god, r he is gracious and merciful. slow to anger and abounding and steadfast love. i pray all these things in the powerful and the authority-filled name of jesus christ of nazareth, 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 approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. please join me in the pledge. 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 virginia, the distinguished majority leader, is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome pastor bradley hales of the reformation lutheran church of culpepper, virginia, to the house floor. for the past 19 years, pastor hales has been focusing on the

renewal and revitalization of churches for greater involvement in their communities. as a leader of his church in culpepper, he's overseen the expansion of a congregation that was once only several dozen members' strong to over 240 today. with a great passion and caring for our senior citizens, pastor hales was very inflution in starting the place, a gathering center within the church for seniors who wish to meet others and stay involve with their community. pastor hales' civic engagement and improving the lives of others is not limited to the house of worship. he also serves as a member of the culpepper human services board and teaches civil war history at the culpepper christian school. his energy and compassion have a positive effect on so many. the culpepper times named him citizen of the year in 2012. pastor hales, i'd like to thank you for being with us here

today and offering this morning's prayer. your leadership and willingness to help others is an inspiration to us all. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about sugar. as conservatives we have a duty to speak out against programs that use regulations to stifle the free market, protect special interests and have outlived their purpose. there are few programs that better fit this bill than the current system of price supports, import restrictions and production quotas that make up our sugar program. r. fliesmann: ensuring producers of guaranteed income no matter what world prices

are. sugar imports are kept to a minimum preventing real competition. but this is not the end. sugar producing have strict quotas. in excess sugar gets bought by the government and then sold to ethanol producers. usual at a loss to the taxpayers. this means consumers pays billions in higher sugar costs, thousands of jobs are lost in the food industry and government continues to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. this week we will have a chance to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that makes substantial reforms to the program and is estimated by the c.b.o. to save taxpayers $73 million. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and free our sugar from government's heavy hand. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. quigley: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1797 because we have been here before. not less than a year ago this body took up a very similar measure and it failed. i hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this attempt. we cannot ban abortions after 20 weeks, first, because it's unconstitutional and, second, because we cannot know the individual situation of every woman. what if a woman gets cancer during her pregnancy, what if she gets preeclampsia which causes seize yours? what if there is a severe fetal abnormality which cannot survive pregnancy or delivery? women are faced with impossibly difficult decisions, but they are their decisions to make, not others ours. please vote no on this thoughtless bill. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise

and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the city of thomasville, north carolina, for being named the 2013 all-america city. thomasville, built on the foundation of furniture manufacturing and textiles, was hit hard over the last 25 years by job losses and plant closing. instead of folding, the city took the challenge head on and rallied together as a community to rebuild and bounce back. the leadership of the entire community, including mayor joe bennett and the chamber of commerce president were instrumental in advancing new projects that made thomasville stand out as an all-america city. mr. hudson: a 20-year development plan for the city, children at play, a plan to redevelop the city's parks to lower crime and helping homeless students in the city are just a few examples of the city's resolve to succeed. through the fortitude of its citizens, thomasville stands as a shining example what can happen when an entire community

collaborates for the betterment of their community. i'm proud to serving thomasville, north carolina. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, because of climate change we're facing stronger and more destructive storms and natural disasters than at any time in our american history and at the same time the sequester is slashing funding for the agencies that is critical to protect, adapt and rebuild. noaa will lose $271 million this year and that includes $50 million for the g.o. stationary weather satellite program. that's the program that provides continuous monitoring for severe weather. so less than a year after hurricane sandy, a month after the devastating tornadoes in oklahoma, we're cutting the agency responsible for forecasting and monitoring

severe weather, but it's not just severe weather disasters on our shores that threaten american communities. my congressional district has seen debris from the 2011 japanese tsunami wash up on our shores. mr. huffman: and our economy is linked to the health of our oceans which are jeopardized by climate change. our planet is warming, we're beginning to feel major impacts and it will only get worse unless we act to protect our climate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate and promote the work that is being done in tennessee's core district by bridgestone, north carolina, the community college, members of the local manufacturing community and local and state governments. mr. fincher: our economy is hindered by a skills gap that hurts both the businesses that need well-trained workers and

those workers looking to better themselves and their families. -- mr. desjarlais: seeing this problem a few years ago, the community president set out to erase the skills gap. a program was brought to the county which combined mechanical, electrical and computerized curricula to allow local high school students the opportunity to gain high demand skills in manufacturing, health care and financial industries. i recently toured the bridgestone north american facility to see how these students are graduating with high school, not only with college credit and technical credentials but most importantly, real-world experience. i look forward to the great work this program and the students will continue to accomplish in the future and certainly we need more like them. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek -- new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, unless congress takes action, student loan rates will double

on july 1. this is unacceptable. access to affordable education is one of the most important issues to young people today. yet, many graduates find themselves tens of thousands of dollars in debt as they leave school and try to enter the work force. in new york state, 60% of college students graduate with some debt, averaging $27,000. mr. speaker, i was pleased to sign the discharge petition by representative joe courtney, h.r. 1595, the student loan relief act, along with over 180 of my colleagues. this legislation would freeze the interest rate at its current 3.4% for the next two years. it's time for the republican leadership to acknowledge the urgency of this legislation and bring it to the floor. all americans deserve a fair shot at a good and affordable education. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my colleague from new york bringing up the issue of student loan rates as he very well knows, the house has passed a bill to do this and our problem is with the senate and the president. don't double my rate. every day students are tweeting those exact words to their representatives. like these students, house republicans see that july 1 is coming and with it the automatic doubling of some federal student loan interest rates. house republicans don't believe that rates should double or that politicians should be in charge of setting them. weeks ago republicans and a few democrats in the house passed the smarter solutions for students act, which will not only keep student loan interest rates from doubling on july 1 but will also remove politics from the equation as well. but the house can't do it alone. the senate must act and the president must lead. right now both are failing. in fact, it appears president obama has completely backed down from defending his

original proposal which, like our house bill, offered a permanent solution to the problem. the president is letting the opportunity to build on common ground slip by. concerned students should ask him why. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: today i rise in opposition to h.r. 1797, legislation that would throw doctors in jail for providing constitutionally protected health care. many of my colleagues talk about less government. well, here's a place where i agree. this bill takes away the ability of women to make their own health care decisions and attempts to replace the informed judgment of doctors with the opinions of politicses. often there are unexpected complications. anielle's amniotic fluid ruptured. jennifer peterson was pregnant when she was diagnosed with

invasive breast cancer. danielle, jennifer and women like them should be able to face these difficult situations by consulting with their doctors. they should not have to worry about whether they're violating an unconstitutional law. when abortion is made illegal, it does not go away. it becomes unsafe. let's not play politics with women's health care. let's focus on prevention and making sure that women have access to safe and legal abortion. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this unconstitutional bill. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor and congratulate zachary of dundee, ohio, who's the recipient of the navy and marine commendation medal, the fifth highest award for his service. zachary received this medal for himming himself in grave danger in order to protect a fellow wounded marine in afghanistan in august, 2010. he was serving as a first team

leader of a regimental combat team when a grenade was thrown at him by taliban forces. without hesitation, zachary threw himself in the marine closest to the explosion shielding from the blast. thankfully neither of the marines were zured. mr. gibbs: he deserves the utmost respect and proud to honor him today. he is discharged from the marine corps and now considered attending college. he hopes to consider a career in law enforcement as a parole officer. thank you, zachary, for your service and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had the honor of joining secretary kerry and hundreds of advocates to mark the 10th anniversary of our global aids program. 10 years ago when the aids pandemic was ravaging many african countries, we put aside our differences and came together to create the most

largest, most effective foreign aid program to date. i'm very humbled to played a small role in the creation of pepfar and crowd of the congressional black caucus and congresswoman eddie bernice johnson, even before the world knew about this initiative and proud of the staff, including michael riggs whose memory and leadership secretary kerry recognized this morning. to quote from a 2002 letter to president bush, the congressional black caucus called for, quote, an expanded united states initiative to respond to the greatest plague in recorded history. the next month in his state of the union speech, president bush bowledly embraced our call -- boldly embraced our call to action. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: pepfar is measured in lines saved and communities transformed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker ment today we're going to move one step closer to banning late-term borningses by supporting h.r. 1797, called the pain-capable unborn child protection act. you know, late-term abortion isn't rare. i was dismayed and disheartened to hear from the horrors of the kermit gosnell trial. worse, this past month, in my home state of texas, former employees of the abortionist douglas carpen alleged he killed babies born alive. these acts are inexcusive, immoral and unjustifiable. mr. johnson: it's time we got rith of this gruesome and barbaric procedure to reduce cases once and for all. the procedure is not only unethical, but unessential. there's extensive evidence that the unborn babies aborted in this manner are alive until the end of the procedure and fully

experience the pain associated with the procedure. we got to do the right thing. we must ban late-term abortion. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1797 and protect the value of life, women and unborn babies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor the many mom and pop shops and smalls abouts across the country as we celebrate national small business week. i know firsthand the difference that small businesses make in our communities. almost 70 years ago my grandmother purchased a little neighborhood store and proclaimed to my grandfather, we're in the grocery business now. mr. kelly: like most small-business families, -- ms. kelly:, like most small business families we took pride in what we did. it was challenging, but it was

rewarding. our grocery store was our family taking a shot at the american dream and sharing that success with others. according to the u.s. small business administration, more than half of americans either own or work for a small business and they create about two out of every three new jobs in the united states each year. small businesses are the backbone of our communities, opening new store fronts, training american workers and manufacturing and centraling goods in our neighborhoods -- selling goods in our neighborhoods. this is this may be national small business but our nation wouldn't be what it is today without every day being a small business day. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina eek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today with great honor to pay respect to bill harding and his family who have served for the last 60 years as missionaries in ethiopia. in an increasing self-serving

society, their sacrifice on behalf of others is truly remarkable. bill harding left charlotte in 1954 with his pregnant wife and three boys under the age of 3 and moved to ethiopia where he trained pastors and worked in local churches. mr. pittenger: i loved the people of ethiopia sacrificialy, even during house arrest during the communist revolution. since that time, one son, bill vi, has managed 500 probablies. son david represents a separate nonprofit, also providing clean water to thirsty villagers. son joe works with american churches to provide desperately needed resources to major youth development program in ethiopia. bill's grandson and granddaughter live in africa, working for nonprofits and continuing the legacy. mr. speaker, their ministry has impacted millions of people as they've honored the lord with their lives. thanks, bill, and your wonderful family, for all that you've done. god bless you.

i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of comprehensive immigration reform. in the bible, it couldn't be more clear. when the son of man returns in all his glory, escorted by the angels, then he will take his seat on the throne of glory. all the nations will be assembled before him and he will separate the people one from another, like sheep from goats. on the right hand he will place the sheep, on the left the goats and to those on his right he will say, come, accept the inheritance that is yours. mr. cartwright: that has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world. for when i was hungry, you gave

me food. when i was thirsty you gave me drink. when i was a stranger you made me welcome. my fellow members of this house, comprehensive immigration reform is not just the right thing to do, it is the righteous thing to do. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> chance to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 30 years ago today on june 18, 1983, dr. sali ride became the first american woman in space aboard the space shuttle challenger. the first of her two flights as a mission specialist. this former astronaut, physicist, educator and space advocate left behind a legacy of accomplishments when she died last year at the age of 61. her legacy continues to inspire and motivate young women. mr. fitzpatrick: with an interest in science, technology, math and

engineering, while the company she founded advances those interests. we acknowledge dr. ride's advocacy for young women in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, a precursor for the stem programs we know are so important today. as a strong proponent of stem education and allied programs, i will continue to applaud dr. ride's effort to encourage interest in space, science and the technical fields by blazing a path for other women to follow. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, america's facing so many challenges today. how do we create more jobs, how do we boost economic growth, how do we support middle class families and small businesses. ms. castor: build things in america again, improve our schools and invest in our infrastructure.

so, it's is congress considering any of these important matters today? no. in fact, here in the middle of june, the republican-controlled congress has not scheduled any legislation on any of those important matters. instead, they're -- their priority today is h.r. 1797, where the all-male house judiciary committee and the house republican leadership intends to interject themselves into the private medical decisions of women and their doctors. they discount the health of the woman, they run counter to what medical professionals, including the american congress on -- the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists say is appropriate. so i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 1797. do not obliterate our constitutional right to privacy. do not take such personal decisions out of the hands of women and their doctors. reject this extreme bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks national small business week. america's small businesses are the engines of job creation. according to the small business administration, small businesses employ almost half of all private sector employees. and depending on the year, small businesses can account for 80% of all new jobs created. as a small business owner myself, i understand firsthand the challenges and hurdles business owners face on a day-to-day basis. mr. collins: as a member of congress, one of my top goals is to continue to push hard for commonsense policies that create the right kind of economic environment for small businesses to grow and hire more people. the exact policies, the g.o.p.-led house continues to advocate and advance. this week i'm asking all small

business owners in my district to complete an online survey about the economy and other issues impacting the small business sector. by visiting my website, chriscollins.house.gov. i want to salute small business owners as we take time this week to acknowledge your hard work and contributions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1797. this bill is not only a direct challenge to the supreme court ruling in roe vs. wade, but it's a dangerous new attack on women's reproductive rights. the proposed ban on this bill does not include an exception for the physical or emotional health of a woman, it fails to provide sufficient protections for victims of rape and incest

and it has a very narrow exception in cases when a woman's life is in danger. h.r. 1797 would significantly reduce the safe, legal options that women have and would prevent doctors from providing the most medically appropriate care for their patients. republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a lack, a lack of understanding about basic women's health care and this bill is just one more example of their continuing attack on women's rights. it is a step backward for women's health and a distraction from the critical work we should be doing to pass legislation regarding immigration reform, strengthening our economy and creating jobs. i urge you to vote no on this unconstitutional legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute.

ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. my, my, my. talk about pain. there's lots of pain in our country. mothers and fathers are out of work. losing homes, bills piling up. so here we go again. another day in congress being squandered as we fight once more about women having access to the medical care we need, free from the long, invasive arm of government. and again there's a cruel unconstitutional twist. under the newly minted h.r. 1797, a woman in desperate need of a physician must instead call the police. mr. speaker, the american people know that there's a better way to protect life. allow women to have access to the health care that we require to live full lives. and let's work together in a bipartisan manner to get people back to work in this country.

thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise very providedly today to honor -- proudly today to honor one of our nation's heroes. a named larry helm who served as a combat veteran in vietnam, who now serves as a commander of veterans caring for veterans center and who is very fondly known to us as uncle larry. he's the epitome of a leader who has been active all across the state of hawaii, fighting for his family, his friends, his neighbors, his community, for veterans and all those who have served in the armeder ises -- services, taking him all the way -- armed services. no natter the challenge, whether in -- no matter the challenge, whether in combat in vietnam or now as he battles cancer, uncle larry has always

stood for what is right. he's dedicated three decades of his life to opening a vet center to those veterans on the island, to make sure that valuable resources are available to these veterans and their families, who very often have access to none. uncle larry, we love you, we honor you and we stand with you in yush -- in your righteous battles and we will work to make your visions a reality. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's hard to believe that only 10 years ago an h.i.v. diagnosis was a death sentence for those living all over the world, but especially in africa. it was downright disgraceful that even though life-saving therapy existed, millions of people were dying of aids because treatment was unaffordable. mr. engel: there are few votes i've taken in the course of my career that have made a significant or positive impact on this world than the vote i

have cast in favor of pepfar. as if september, 2012, the united states is supporting life-saving antroviral treatment for more than 5.1 million people. more than 11 million pregnant women received h.i.v. testing and counseling last year and as a result of adequate treatment this month, the one millionth baby will be born h.i.v.-free thanks to pepfar. the fact an aids-free generation is on the who arize season a true testament to the willingness -- on the horizon is a true testament to the willingness of the presidents and congress to take on the challenge and do the hard work necessary to turn the tide against h.i.v. and aids. we must continue to do that, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: i rise in strong

opposition to h.r. 1797 which the house will consider today. it's another in a long, long line of assault on women's health and it's blatantly unconstitutional. reproductive health, including abortion care, is a private medical decision between a woman and her health care provider, period. a woman's right to choose is a fundamental freedom and there's no place for dark suited politicians to impose their personal beliefs on a woman's private medical decision. h.r. 1797 doesn't include an adequate life exception that takes a woman's health into account. it's patently unconstitutional and it's completely inconsistent with the supreme court's decision in roe vs. wade. mr. speaker, once again, it's clear my republican colleagues are unable or unwilling to put forth ideas to create jobs, strengthen the economy or invest in america's future. instead, here we go with another ideological battle. and so america's women have one unified message for republicans -- stay out of our doctor's

office, stay out of our health care and leave us alone. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. -- the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for within minute. ms. clarke: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1797. this act is both dangerous and unconstitutional and violates the rights of women who are in need of an abortion. it is blatantly unconstitutional and in clear violation of more than 40 years of supreme court precedent that protect women's access to abortion prior to viability. that is prior to 24, not 20, weeks. this precedent was affirmed in planned parenthood v. casey. pregnancy due to violent and unfortunate circumstances, such as rape an incest, happens to

thousands of people every year, not to mention medical complication that imperils the life of the mother. women impacted by rape and incest must not be further victimized by this misguided legislation. we must not allow our nation's right to choose to be infringed upon by a minority of people in this nation. we cannot let them bully the rest of the country into excepting their world view. that is why i will continue to support a woman's right to choose and stand in opposition to h.r. 1797, and i stand up for women's rights to self-determination. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 18, 2013, at 9:48 a.m. that the senate passed senate

330. appointment, health, information technology policy committee. signed sincerely, carolina l. haas. -- karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: 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. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1896. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1896, a bill to amend part d of title 4 of the social security act to ensure that the united states can comply fully with the obligations of the hague convention of 23 november 2007 on the international recovery of child support and other , ms of family maintenance and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr.

reichert, and the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i rise today with my colleague, mr. doggett of texas, to urge support of h.r. 1896, the international child support recovery improvement act of 2013. this bill provides the implementing legislation for the hague convention on international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance, ensuring that law enforcement authorities will be able to enforce child support orders even when a child or parent

lives overseas. mr. speaker, as the former sheriff in king county, which is in seattle, washington, for those in the chamber who may not know, i worked there for 33 years. i had the opportunity of putting together a unit that was devoted to finding parents who weren't taking on their financial responsibility for their children. those providing those financial needs. and what we learned was not only is it important for the parents to be part of their child's life when they leave financially, to give them the health care benefits they need, the education that they might need, any other financial needs that the child might need, but also provides a social benefit, a real benefit of involvement by that parent. once that parent gets financially involved, that parent is intimately involved

in that child's life. usually it's the father, sad to say, just a couple days after father's day, 95% to 98% of the parents who leave and don't continue to support their child financially, it's usually the father. when that father, that parent gets involved financially, they all of a sudden realize they've missed out on that child's life. they've missed soccer games, baseball games. theatrical ed their performances, their participation in school. this also reduces crime, in my experience, again, going back as the sheriff. these kids have both parents involved, and it keeps them involved with the family and not in other activities that we would really prefer them not to

be involved in. so currently states have the option to recognize child support orders from other countries and many of them do. however, states have found that other countries are less cooperative in recognizing our orders. the hague convention seeks to address this issue by establishing a standardsized process so more countries cooperate in child support. negotiation of this treaty began in 2003, and it was signed eventually in 2007 and the senate acted on this in 2010. they gave their consent. the treaty provides many protections for our children, but states cannot take advantage of the benefits until congress moves forward. enforcement of child support orders should not end at the water's edge. children, regardless of where they or their parents live should receive financial support from their parents. the united states cannot ratify

the hague convention until all states make the necessary changes. so time to act is now. this bill includes a continuation of the subcommittee's bipartisan efforts to standardsize and improve the exchange of data within the human services program. while the child support system already relies heavily on data exchanges, it is important for those exchange efforts to be consistent with provisions we've recently enacted in the child welfare area, tanf and unemployment programs. the goal is simple. improve government efficiency, provide benefits to those who are eligible and drive out waste, fraud and abuse. finally, this bill expands researcher access to a database maintained by the office of child support enforcement. the national directory of new hires collects employment,

outcome information for individuals working in most jobs in the united states. expanding access to earnings data in the directory will improve our ability to determine whether federal education training and social service programs help people find and keep their jobs. according to the administration, most federal agencies do not currently have a reliability access to data that can show the impact of their programs on participants' employment on their earnings. in an era of tighter resources, it is crucial that we have reliable data to conduct rigorous evaluations to make sure the federal programs are getting results. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record letters of support for is legislation from mdrc and the national child support enforcement association. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reichert: thank you. in addition, key parts of this

legislation are supported by respected organizations like the conference of state court of administrators, the conference of chief justices, the department of health and human services, the department of labor, the office of management and budget, and from research community associates, mathematic policy research, rand, social policy research and the urban institute. i want to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, mr. doggett, who joins me on the floor today and other members of the subcommittee for their support as original co-sponsors. i invite all members to join us in supporting this important bipartisan legislation. it will move us a step closer to ratfying the hague convention on international recovery child support and making sure that more children living in the u.s. will receive the financial support they deserve. i urge all my colleagues to support this bill and reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, mr. reichert, i'm pleased to join in support of this international child support recovery improvement act. we tried to do this just about a year ago. i co-authored very similar legislation in the last congress that was bipartisan here on the floor. though we acted here, the senate was slow to act. we are hopeful with the leadership of chairman reichert and, again, broad bipartisan support, we can get this measure passed not only here in the house but see prompt action in the senate. international borders should never be barriers to children receiving the financial support that their parents are obligated to provide. nor should a parent be able to shirk their responsibility to their child by just leaving america. but the complexity and difficulty in enforcing child support obligations when a

child and the noncustodial parent live in one country and the other parent lives in another, sometimes lets the parent off the hook. the bill before us today would reduce many of the challenges in collecting child support across international borders by fully implementing the hague convention on the international recovery of child support. the senate adopted that hague convention as a treaty in 2010, and this legislation will bring us into full compliance and encourage the state child support agencies to have uniformed methods for processing international child support orders. here in the united states, many of our state child support agencies already recognize and enforce foreign child support obligations whether or not the united states has a reciprocal agreement, this ensures that all 50 states do. many foreign nations are not enforcing a u.s. child support order in the absence of a

treaty or other agreement. while our nation does have reciprocal child support agreements with some countries, it does not have arrangements with many of those around the globe. hence the need for the single treaty that establishes a uniformed, efficient procedure for processing international child support cases. some desperate families are today asking for help through the federal office of child support enforcement, and many of them are -- that office is not able to provide the help. we have an estimated 160,000 international child support cases that currently involve children or parents here in the united states. with the very nature of our global economy, with more goods and services and people moving across national boundaries, this number is likely to only grow. as with other effective child support measures, it's taxpayers who benefit by not

being saddled with the cost of supporting children when a parent should be doing that. the congressional budget office concludes that this bill would result in some modest net savings to the child support program. in addition to improving the international collection of child support, the legislation includes a provision that is new under mr. reichert's leadership concerning data standardization within the child support enforcement system. we've worked diligently to incorporate the same requirement into other human resources programs to improve the ability to share data, a step that will make them for efficient, less susceptible to fraud and better able to reach those who really need assistance. finally, this measure would also allow certain researchers access to wage information in a child support database known as the national directory of new hires, in order to determine the effectiveness of employment-related programs. mr. speaker, this bill is truly

bipartisan, it doesn't cost taxpayers money. in fact, it will save taxpayers money. and most importantly it will help more children get the financial help that they deserve. the house-passed -- the house passed nearly identical legislation last year about this time and after we passed the bill -- after we pass the bill today, i urge our senate colleagues to act promptly to ensure that leaving the country doesn't mean leaving your child support obligation behind. i have no further speakers and am prepared to yield back if the gentleman from washington has no further speakers. >> i have no further speakers either and i'm prepared to close. mr. doggett: i yield back and thank the gentleman from washington for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. again, i think it's very clear this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation. mr. reichert: really focused on strengthening the family and

protecting children and reengaging parents who have left their home, reengaging them with their families, getting them involved in their children's activities and providing for them financially. one statistic that i recall as the sheriff, when i first became sheriff in 1997, we began this program at the state level. 72% of juvenile males were without fathers. 70% of those committed homicide. it's just a stark figure, a stark statistic that really highlights the need for parents to be involved in their children's lives. so, mr. speaker, once again, i wholeheartedly of course endorse this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1896. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the suspension of the rules, to pass h.r. 475. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 475, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to include vaccines against seasonal influenza with the definition of taxable vaccines. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. gerlach: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gerlach: i rise to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation that my colleague, mr. neal of massachusetts, and i believe will help make the upcoming flu

season less miserable for millions of americans and avoid expensive hospital stays for those suffering with the flu. last december in the midst of a flu season in which the centers for disease control and prevention reported more than 12,000 people hospitalized with flu complications, and 149 deaths among children under the age of 18, the food and drug administration approved a new vaccine developed to fight the four-strain flu virus. but despite this development, it is imperative that we pass this legislation if we want to guarantee the most up to date four-strain flu vaccine is available to patients who need it. that's because under the current law, the vaccine injury compensation program, a no-fault system for compensating injuries or death caused by vaccines, covers flu vaccines that only protect against three viral strains. this bill would add vaccines that protect against four viral strains to the program and ensure that the most up to date flu vaccines are available in

time for the flu season this fall. without the liability protections of the compensation program, civil litigation from the use of this vaccine could explode and disincentivize vaccine producers from making this new medicine available. the vaccine injury compensation program was created in 1986 because at the time fears of frisk louis lawsuits that could wipe -- frivolous lawsuits that could wipe out businesses and bankrupt providers were causing vaccine manufacturers to leave the market, thereby leaving the general public without access to the best medicines available. so getting this new vaccine on the program list is essential. one other note, it's important to understand that this bill is not, as some media have inaccurately reported, a flu tax. this legislation does not create any new taxes. the bill before us does not raise tax rates. and there's absolutely no evidence that flu shots will cost one penny more if this bipartisan bill becomes law. in fact, the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation analyzed the legislation and concluded

there would be no new taxes or windfall to the federal government. that's because under the current law 75 cents goes into the vaccine injury compensation program every time someone gets a flu shot or any number of other vaccines used to protect the public against all kinds of diseases. the truth is that every one of the estimated 135 million americans who received a flu shot during this past flu season paid 75 cents into the fund and that 75 cents charged today would also apply to this new vaccine. if you think 75 cents is an exorbitant amount to pay, consider that that in my home state of pennsylvania, the average cost of a a hospital stay ranges from $649 a day to $1,921 per day, according to the kaiser family foundation. without this legislation, taxpayers would be picking up the tab for flu-related hospitalizations for seniors and others enrolled in medicaid and medicare. the only way the federal government will collect more money next flu season is if a greater number of people

voluntarily get flu shots. and most medical professionals will tell you, getting a flu shot improves public health and lowers the risk of racking up expensive medical bills, especially for children and seniors. vanderbilt university medical center, in collaboration with the centers for disease control and prevention, found that flu vaccines reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization by 71.4% among adults of all ages. and by 76.8% in study participants 50 years of age or older during the 2011-2012 flu season. in closing, i would ask my colleagues to support this legislation so that our doctors and hospitals can offer the public the very best and latest protection against constantly evolving strains of the flu virus this fall. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: i rise in support of h.r. 475, a bill to update the

excise tax on vaccines against seasonal influenza. year after year the flu poses a threat to millions of americans causing between 24,000 and 49,000 deaths and 226,000 hospitalizations each year. in fact, my home state of massachusetts had over 28,000 confirmed cases of flu this past season. the flu is particularly life-threatening for our nation's most vulnerable, the elderly and children. during the most recent flu season, there were 150 pediatric deaths across the nation and it is estimated that 90% of those children were not vaccinated. america must prepare for the next flu season. public health and medical professionals, hospitals and vaccine manufacturers are moving quickly to prepare for the upcoming season by manufacturing new vaccines and educating the public about the importance of preventing the flu. one critical step in this

preparation is to make certain that the newest and most effective flu vaccines will be available to the public. to do that i introduced this legislation that we're acting upon today with my friend, congressman gerlach, to update our law, to ensure access to new flu vaccines. the national vaccine injury compensation program was established in 1986 to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vack evens -- vaccines to be compensated. these awards are funded by a 75-cent per dose excise tax on vaccines that are widely used and recommended by the centers for disease control and prevention, for routine administration to children. the program requires congressional action from time to time because unless the excise tax is assessed on a

particular vaccine, it is not covered by the program and therefore those injured can't be compensated under the program. currently the excise tax on seasonal influenza vaccines applies only to three strain vaccines and excludes any non-three-strain vaccines. but this season three new vaccines will be available. these vaccines will provide broader protection against the flu because they can combat more strains of the virus. therefore we must amend the excise tax law to include the advanced flu vaccine. to ensure access to the new vaccine, our bill would apply e excise tax to all vaccines against seasonal influenza just as in the past. it is very important to note this will not increase the tax or change the vaccine injury compensation program. let me repeat, it is very

important to note that this will not increase the tax or change the vaccine injury compensation program. it's also important to note at this legislation does not affect in any way the f.d.a. approval process. vaccines for children, adolescents and adults are aproved and recommended through a rigorous multi-year process. vaccines must be approved by the f.d.a. and then must also be evaluated and formally recommended by the centers for disease control and prevention before they are administered by health care providers or covered by health insurance programs. before concluding i'd like to note that this legislation has broad support, including aarp, every child by 2, families fighting flu, imization action coalition, infectious diseases society of america, and mass bio. our legislation brings the excise tax into alignment with

most recent developments in medicine. the quick enactment of h.r. 475 is critical to making the new seasonal flu vaccines available for the 2013-2014 flu season. i urge the house to pass this legislation as quickly as possible and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. gerlach: i thank the speaker. in closing, mr. speaker, h.r. 475 is a great bipartisan, bicameral bill that will help protect our nation's children and seniors from flu. i want to thank my friend, mr. neal of massachusetts, for his cooperation and work on this legislation. also i would like to thank the ways and means staff, my chief of staff and especially my ways and means counsel for their great work on this legislation. also i'd like to thank senators hatch and bachus on the senate side in their work.

with the 2013 flu season on the horizon, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 475, to ensure that the public has access to the newest four-strain flu vaccine. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: again, thanks to mr. gerlach and our capable staffers. in the senate this was done by unanimous consent. that's an important consideration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having been yielded back, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 475. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . . in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rule is suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.