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.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1151. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1151, a bill to direct the secretary of state to develop a strategic -- strategy to obtain observer status for taiwan at the try enial international civil aviation organization assembly, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: 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 this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of bipartisan legislation that i authored to help secure observer status for taiwan at the international civil aviation organization. this legislation requires the secretary of state to develop and execute a strategy to ensure taiwan has a seat at the table for i.k.o.'s upcoming september meeting. it has been over 40 years since taiwan was last a member of i.k.o., and indeed a lot has changed in that 40 years. as it stands now, all communications between taiwan and the u.s. on aviation safety

must be channeled through the american institute in taiwan, which is our nation's de facto embassy in taiwan. the fact that taiwan can't speak directly to the federal aviation administration without this added layer of bureaucracy makes no sense. after all, we are talking about air safety information that is otherwise readily available to all of i.k.o.'s members. taiwan's entry into the u.s. visa waiver program last year has dramatically increased both the frequency of flights between our airports and the real number of travelers coming here to the united states. for my home state of california, the increase in visitors from taiwan has resulted in a significant boost for the local economy, especially for the travel industry, the leisure industry, restaurants, for

example. shops. i'm proud to have worked on taiwan's entry into the visa waiver program because i know that as a result of this agreement taiwanese americans in southern california have a much easier time staying connected to their families. mr. speaker, as the number of visitors from taiwan has grown exponentially, there is an urgent need to ensure that taiwan has real time access to air safety information. strengthening air safety benefits american citizens as much as it does the taiwanese. every year tens of thousands of americans fly through taiwan's airspace which must be as safe as it can be, and this bill will certainly help. just as taiwan was allowed to join the world health organization as a result of the sars outbreak, so should taiwan be afforded the opportunity to observe the proceedings of the

i.k.o. we all share the responsibility to ensure that international air travel be safe. taiwan's unique political status has thus far hindered its inclusion in i.k.o. with this piece of legislation we are sending a clear message that air safety is a priority and not a geopolitical issue. earlier this year my good friend, eliot engel, of new york and i traveled to taiwan to see firsthand the immense progress that the people of taiwan have made over such a short period of time. taiwan is, indeed, a beacon of freedom in the asia pacific region. we share many values with taiwan, including an unwavering commitment to democracy and to human rights and to free markets, to the rule of law. helping taiwan gain entry as an observer into the i.k.o. is the right thing to do and i urge my

colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from american samoa is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1151, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: i would certainly like to thank, especially, the chief sponsor of this proposed bill, distinguished chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, for his leadership on this issue. and also our senior ranking member, mr. eliot engel from new york, for his support as well. i'm happen to say i'm a proud co-sponsor of this bill as well. mr. speaker, this legislation directs the secretary of state to develop a strategy to gain observer status for taiwan at the triennia assembly of the international civil aviation

organization. taiwan has made significant progress in its economic and political development. today taiwan is a leading trade partner of the united states and stands as a beacon of democracy throughout asia. however taiwan has been shut out of participating in international organizations like icom founded in 1947, this organization has been to ensure safety and efficiency on air transportation around the globe. taiwan deserves to be brought into the icaoa as an observer. it has jurisdiction over an airspace of approximately 180 thousand square nautical miles, and provides air traffic control services to more than 1.2 million flights a year. in my recent visit to taiwan as well, it was learned that approximately 600 weekly flights are now in existence between china and taiwan alone. taiwan's international airport is the world's 19th largest in

terms of passenger volume, and the number of travelers between taiwan and the united states is likely to increase with taiwan's entry into the visa waiver program last year, as mentioned by my distinguished chairman, mr. royce. taiwan's exclusion from icaoa has impeded taiwan's efforts to maintain the civil aviation practices that keep up with rapidly evolving international standards. it is unable to even contact icaoa for up-to-date information on aviation standards and norms. nor can it receive the technical assistance in implementling new regulations or participate in technical and academic seminars. taiwan has made every effort to comply with icaoa standards, but a continued exclusion not only hurts taiwan, but it puts the rest of us and the entire world at risk, especially when you are talking about safety and hazardous conditions when it

deals with air travel. with such a heavy volume of flights, taiwan's exclusion has prevent the icaoa from developing a truly global strategy to address security threats based on effective international cooperation. icaoa's own rules and practices allow for the meaningful participation of noncontracting countries, as well as other organizations. and its meetings and activities through the observer status. the united states in the review of taiwan policy conducted in 1994 declared its intention to support taiwan's participation in appropriate international organizations and has consistently reiterated that support. mr. speaker, with this bill today congress is calling on the united states government to take a leading role at icaoa to assist taiwan in gaining observer status and look forward to working with our new administration officials to

track the development of these efforts. again i thank the gentleman from california for his leadership on this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i thank the gentleman from american samoa. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman emeritus of the foreign affairs committee and chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east and north africa. she's also a co-sponsor of this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman of our committee for introducing this excellent piece of legislation and for his leadership in our committee. i am very pleased to speak in favor of this legislation which assists taiwan, one of our most valued allies, in obtaining observer status at icaoa international civil aviation organization.

taiwan is a major hub for international air travel, and particularly it serves as a link between the northeast and southeast asia, and to europe, and the united states, and now that taiwan has joined the visa waiver program, travel between our two nations will undoubtedly increase. almost 1.3 million flights pass over the region each year, but due to the ill-advised appeasement of china at the united nations, taiwan must receive its international aviation safety and security information secondhand. taiwan's exclusion from international organizations like icaoa is a shortsighted and dangerous practice. it ends up hurting the international community as much as it does the taiwanese people themselves. preventing a significant player in aviation like taiwan from participating in icao threatens

the entire international community who defend on the application of universal aviation standards. unfortunately, attempts to placate china at the united nations are nothing new and a reminder that that organization lacks seriousness. china's threat that foreign interference will hurt negotiations with taiwan to allow its participation in icao should be ignored by the u.n. the u.n. must do what is right for the entire international community, and i urge the organization to put aside its petty politics and work on behalf of the safety of all of the world's zints. mr. speaker, the taiwan relations act continues to be the cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy with our democratic ally, taiwan, and we must always keep it as the guiding beacon.

the next meeting of icao is this september, and i expect to see our state department have a strategy that they will implement to make sure that taiwan will be at the table this fall. the friendship between the people of the united states and taiwan has cemented into one of our most cherished partnerships, and i look forward to the united states government demonstrating its continued commitment to the people of taiwan with the passage of this most excellent bill. i thank the chairman for the time. i thank him for his leadership on taiwan through the years. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from american samoa is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i want to associate myself and certainly commend the gentlelady from florida for her most eloquent statement and historical outline of what has

happened in terms of our special relationship with the people and leaders of taiwan. and she could not have said it better. you know at the old saying, if you're not at the table you are going to be on the menu. i think taiwan has been on the menu for too long. they need to be at the table. especially playing such a strong and important economic role as a democracy in asia and as a beacon of light to all the people of asia what it means to live under democratic conditions. with that, mr. chairman, again i thank my good friend, the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill. i have no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from american samoa yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, it has been over 40 years since taiwan last had a seat at the international civil aviation organization. the volume of air traffic in and out of taiwan's airports back then cannot be compared with

that incredible volume of traffic, millions of planes a year, that come in and out of modern day taiwan. under the visa waiver program, airlines have added even more flights in order to take advantage of greater demand for tourists and business travel from taiwan into the united states. this number is only going to grow as more and more taiwanese take advantage of the visa waiver program. it is time that we readmit taiwan into icao so that everyone who words the plane can have the utmost confidence about the safety of their trip. aviation technology has progressed by leaps and bounds and the idea that taiwan cannot directly communicate with the united states or any other nation engaging in issues regarding air safety is not in anyone's interest.

that's not in the interest of any nation. i urge my colleagues to join in supporting h.r. 1151. taiwan is one of america's closest friends in the world, we share so much in common, including a steadfast dedication to democracy and rule of law and human rights and it is time that we fixed this problem. . i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. all time having expired, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1151. 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 gentleman from california. mr. royce: on that i would ask -- i would request 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

question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 266 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the

resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 33, house resolution 266,s remain solved that at any time -- resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1947. to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture. after general debate, the committee of the whole shall rise without motion. no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except, pursuant to a subsequent order of the house. section 2, upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house

the bill, h.r. 1797, to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the district of columbia and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, now printed until the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-15 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controled by the chair and ranking minority member of the judiciary, and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i raise a point of order against house resolution 266 because the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, h.r. 1797, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act, which causes violation of the section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentlewoman from maryland and a member opposed each will control 2010 minutes of debate on the question of -- 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following debate the chair shall put the -- put the question. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. when the majority began this congress, it began with the

idea, in their language, that they would adhere to fiscal responsibility, to constitutionality. in fact, we read the constitution on the floor of this body. and that they had learned the lessons from the election slaughtering in 2012. and that is to stop the assault on women's health care. but oh, no. here we are today with a bill, h.r. 1797, that violates the congressional budget act, it violates the constitution, that violates the doctor-patient relationship that a woman has with her doctor and we haven't focused on jobs. and so, when you look at h.r. 1797, the pain-capable unborn child protection act, it would impose a ban across the country on abortion after 20 weeks. aside from ignoring medical realities and placing the lives of mothers with serious medical conditions at risk through governmental interference with

the doctor-patient relationship, the underlying bill also includes reporting requirements that, according to the congressional budget act, which it would violate, would add costs to local law enforcement. and with a total of 25 states introducing 64 similar abortion ban measures in the last three years, the bill is yet another assault on women's reproductive rights. and is blatantly unconstitutional. abortion care in this country is a private medical decision that's made between a woman and her health care provider. those are the only people who should be in the room. and yet here in this legislation, they've created just a narrow exception that doesn't even take into account the risk to a woman's health and would subject physicians to criminal penalties for caring for their patients. h.r. 1797 contains unreasonably justified penalties for

doctors, including five years in jail and would have a negative impact on abortion care reproductive health care all across the country. by jeopardizing and criminalizing abortion care we limit the options women have to receive comprehensive reproductive health care. and these limitations could lead women to access abortion care that is both unsafe and dangerous to their health. i'd like to yield 15 seconds to the other side if they would care to address the question of whether this closed rule means that there will not be a single amendment or alternative offered to this bill which has a profound effect on women's health and reproductive rights. 15 seconds i'd yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina if she'd care to answer that question. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, this is a dilatory tactic and has nothing to do with this. ms. edwards: reclaiming my time under the rule, it's the case

that the bill, i believe, that we'll vote on today for final passage has not followed regular order and it hasn't been rewritten after its adoption in the judiciary committee. the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes a 20-week ban, citing the threat to -- threat these laws pose to women's health. and with that i would like to yield one minute to my colleague from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today we're discussing a bill that's divisive, will never become law and is an affront to women's health. as a long-time advocate for a woman's right to choose and the idea that women and their doctors should be making personal health decisions, not politicians, i stand in strong opposition. this 20-week abortion ban is a harmful measure that jeopardizes a woman's health and her ability to have a family in the future by denying

her access to an abortion even if she experienced severe dangerous health complications as a result of a pregnancy. in a potentially life-threatening situation, a woman and her doctor deserve to have every medical option available to them. the bill is clearly unconstitutional and an attempt to substitute politicians' judgment for those of doctor and their patients as they make their difficult personal medical decisions. instead of bringing bills to the floor that address the major issues facing our country right now, the speaker and majority leader have brought another bill to vote that is much more about political posturing than helping america's economy or students. i ask the leadership of the house how many jobs does this bill create? does this help balance our budget? how many student loans will be kept at a low rate by passing this bill? mr. speaker, i yield back. ms. edwards: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to claim time in opposition, point of order and

in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 10 minutes. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, the question before the house is, should the house now consider h.res. 266? while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee on rules is not aware of any violation of the unfunded mandates reform act. this is a dilatory tactic. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. it's very clear to me that the underlying bill in fact does violate the congressional budget act. it imposes a mandate, an unfunded mandate on local police departments for the work that they do. now, it's this crowd on the

other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, who's opposed to unfunded mandates. nevertheless, it's also true that in fact if the decision to receive an abortion in this country, particularly late in a pregnancy, is an intensely personal decision and yet it's the suits on the other side of the aisle who have decided that it's their decision to interfere with a woman's right to make those choices between herself and her doctor. it's a decision that none of us want to face and one that legislaters -- legislators, particularly members of congress, should not interfere with. the bill also cites the constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the house. and yet it is blatantly, blatantly unconstitutional. completely inconsistent with the supreme court's decision in roe vs. wade. and so i'd like to yield 15 seconds again to the gentlewoman from the other side to ask her whether under the definitions in this bill, what

does it mean to not have protection of the life of the mother include psychological or emotional conditions? well, the gentlewoman can't answer that and so i suppose i could ask her as well, if the speaker would allow, i yield again, 15 seconds, to the gentlewoman, if this bill cites the constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the house, and yet it's blatantly unconstitutional, do house rules allow it to be considered, allow h.r. 1797 even to be considered on the floor of this house if it's unconstitutional? and i'd yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i'll repeat what i said before. this is a dilatory tactic and we should be moving on to the resolution and with that i reserve the balance of my time. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, reclaiming my time, i know that

the gentlewoman from north carolina and the other side would prefer to yield and move on with a bill that violates the budget control act, violates the constitution and violates the relationship between a doctor and a patient. and yet the decision to receive an abortion is a woman and a woman's alone. in addition, the bill infringes on the right of the district of columbia to make decisions about the way in which it cares for its residents. i mean, the majority is all over the place, interfering with the district of columbia, interfering with women's right -- with a woman's right to make the decision by themselves, and actually stepping on the toes of local law enforcement to impose costs on them to enforce an unconstitutional bill. thank goodness it won't become law. . the sponsor of the bill is entitled to his belief, and it

was a his, on the judiciary committee that considered this there is not a single republican woman who had a chance to consider this on the judiciary committee, and yet the role of the government should not be limit access to health care or limit the freedom and liberties of the public, we should recognize this decision is one best left to a woman in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her faith. women across this country don't rely on congress and politicians to advise them on mammograms, cervical cancer screening, or maternal health needs. an abortion is no different. as with these other procedures, we should make comprehensive health care available to all women and allow them with the consult of their health provider and loved ones to decide , when how, and why they take care of their health. americans, including women, sent a clear message last november at the polls, they are tired of congress meddling in their business and taking extreme and

divisive legislation targeted, assaulting women's health. so with that i actually yield another 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from north carolina she would care to respond whether today, given that 40% of women are primary breadwinners in their household, but women continue to face workplace challenges, pay equity, and other barriers to fully contribute to our economy, would you agree that this bill does not address those economic challenges for women or create jobs and is an exercise in political theater at best? with that i yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman to respond. ms. foxx: i thank the gentlewoman for asking the question, but i think most americans would wonder, mr. speaker, is where is the due process for the millions of babies who are murdered every

year in this country by these unconscionable tactics of abortion? with that -- ms. edwards: reclaiming my time, i'd like to yield 15 seconds to the the gentlewoman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: are there any republican women on the house judiciary committee which reported this legislation? and do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i guess i just have a few

questions that i'll just put out there on the table. the american people want us to work to address the nation's most urgent priorities like creating jobs and strengthening the economy. i wonder if the speaker at all can inform us what jobs this particular bill creates. under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest victims, would they have to report even if their life is in danger from the perpetrator? curious question. does this bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims and 54% of these rape victims do not report rape due to intimidation and embarrassment? under the definitions in this bill, what does it mean not to have protection of the life of the mother included in psychological and emotional conditions? does the bill disqualify again rape victims? is the case that the bill redefines what qualifies as incest by only applying it to a minor? so if an adult has been victimized by a relative since

childhood and gets pregnant is not allowed to have an abortion or pregnancy with that relative? we have a lot of questions. mr. speaker, i have to tell you women across america are tired of having their rights assaulted. they are tired of having their health care decisions taken from them. we need to vote down h.r. 1797. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution? so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentlelady from north

carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, house resolution 266 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of h.r. 1797, the pain capable unborn child protection act in general debate for h.r. 1947, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act. mr. speaker, the rule before us today provides for general debate of h.r. 1947, the federal agricultureure reform and risk management act, also known as

the farm bill. this legislation provides for a five-year authorization of federal agriculture and nutrition policy. h.r. 1947 makes necessary reforms and updates to the supplemental nutrition assistance program previously known as food stamps, as well as federal acking a -- agriculture polcy. it is important to make commonsense changes to these programs to ensure their viability and that they remain targeted to those most in need of assistance. this year's version of the farm bill has gone through regular order, including numerous hearings at the agriculture committee, a full committee markup, and amendment process. additionally, the rules committee has received hundreds of amendments from members seeking to further improve the bill during floor consideration. house republicans remain committed to an open, transparent process and i'm pleased to say we are continuing that commitment with the consideration and process for

the farm bill. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for 40 years i have been marching for this women's choice bill, but we seem never to finish with it. it's something that people like to drag up and bring out. in that regard i want to ask the women of america to think of two things. first i want you to remember the panel that chairman issa put together last year to discuss contraception and whether or not women should have access to it. if you recall that that panel was made up entirely of men. a young woman, a graduate of law school, who wanted to speak that day but she was found to be unworthy, unable to speak, and indeed her virtue, her

character, everything else about her was assailed because she had tried to do what many of us know we can do here, and that is speak our will. think about another thing, think about the judiciary committee. 22, now 23, all white guys. deciding, turning down every amendment to try to preserve women's health, to try to preserve women's psyche, and try to discuss this bill as my colleague vainly tried to do that this is unconstitutional. everybody knows it. everybody knows the senate's not going to take this up. this is purely window dressing. as i do hear often, i want to remind everybody that it costs $24 million a week to run the house of representatives. we spent over $54 billion almost already. just try to repeal the health care bill.

when in the world are we going to get to work? 2 1/2 weeks from now the interest rate on college loans will double. are we doing anything about that? not a thing on earth. do we care about the people who are out of work? do we care about the people facing loss of their food stamps? no. we care about war on women. women of america keep those two panels before your mind forever. those are the deciders, the men on issa's panel, the men on the judiciary committee. now, in statehouses all over this country, and governor's mansions and halls of congress, the agenda is driven by men in blue suits and red ties who seem to believe once they get elected to something they have the right to play doctor. i would like to think that what they have done over the last year to remind my fellow

american women. already has caused women in eight states are required to undergo an ultrasound before they can exercise their constitutional protected right to a safe and legal abortion. an ultrasound that is not medically necessary, an ultrasound that is contradicted, and for which they are required themselves to pay. as we speak, the legislators in the state of wisconsin have passed a similar measure to the statehouse. most telling is right now more states have a waiting period for abortions than a waiting period to buy a gun. let me say that again. more states have a waiting period for abortions, a actually protected procedure, than have a waiting period to buy a gun. now, here in congress the majority conduct add hearing of the oversight and government

reform committee last year i have already spoken of, five men and zero women, and as you know talked about sandra fluke and all the hatred that was poured down on her because she wanted to speak. just last week i think this past week the majority took it a whole lot further. for the first time the -- during the committee, after it was all passed and gone, before it goes to the rules committee, the sponsor of this bill made one of those comments like todd akin had made, that, and i think if you scratch an awful lot of guys on that committee they feel the same way because it keeps coming up over and over. you can't get pregnant, they say, if you're raped. they believe that to the bottom of their heart. some of them are doctors. but during the committee amendments, including exceptions for health of the mother of victims of rape and incest, they were rejected on party lines. mr. frank has been taken off the

bill and for the first time in my recollection unanimous consent has to be given here to ask a woman, they have found a republican woman who would take this bill off a completely of the committee and allow her to manage the bill. now, if that's not a first, i don't know what any -- if that is not p.r. i don't know what is. if that is not simply trying to fool you, i don't know what else that is. mr. franks' remark and extreme nature of this bill was clear when they realized they were about to anger american women even more than last fall. you know how that turned out. but instead of abandonning legislation and respecting a woman's right to choose, they decided to make changes to the underliling bill -- underlying bill and assign a woman outside the committee to manage the bill on the floor. such a cowardly move and insult to the intelligence of women in america.

you are supposed to believe this is all done well and properly. no manner of address is going to change the fact are you severely trying to strip a woman's right to choose. i don't think anybody makes any bones about that. the majority has argued the legislation is in response to new science, even though if there has ever been a house of representatives for science, i can't imagine they would come close to this one. the fetus feels pain is newt idea. as my colleague, mr. nadler, who has previously made clear, their so-called new findings, in quotation marks, are nothing more than the marginal views that fly in the face of established science. in fact, within of the experts on which the majority real lies has testified that science for and against fetal pain is most uncertain. the fact of the matter is today's legislation is unconstitutional and paints a narrow and inadequate exception for the life of a woman in a

victim of rape and incest, and no man on any of those committees, no man on any of those panels, is ever going to have to place that problem -- face that problem himself of rape and incest. how strange it is that they know the precise answer for people who are victimized by it. many serious health conditions actually materialize and worsen after the 20th week mark in a pregnancy and can seriously compromise the health of the mother. . a physician has to be able to provide the best care for their patients. the politicians have no right in intruding on a doctor-patient relationship and criminalizing those trying to protect their patients' lives and safety. furthermore, the majority's requirement in a victim of rape or incest would report the crime to authorities before receiving an abortion effectively prevents many victims from exercising the right to choose. more than half of all rape

victims as we know don't report. and that's a sad thing. but the requirement in today's bill ensures a woman's been a victim of rape or incest faces massive barriers to exercising her right to safe and legal productive health care. mr. speaker, from requiring women to undergo mandatory ultrasoubleds to requiring police reports for victims of rape, the majority has made it clear they don't trust women. it came up at the judiciary committee that one of the reasons they needed to report it to police, because women would lie. i think they make an exception in that case for their sisters, their daughters, their mothers, perhaps. it's just the rest of us who can't be trusted. try as he might, no man will ever understand the choice that faces a young woman who is told that she suffers from severe valvular heart disease and if she carries a child to term, her life and the life of the

child are at risk. or the choice of a woman who was violently raped and would be reminded of the crime against her every moment of every day if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term. i urge my colleagues to respect the established science on this issue and the constitutional right of every american woman. reject today's rule and the underlying legislation and i eserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i suspect that my colleague from new york knows this, but i will make sure it gets into the record. in the 2007 case of gonzalez vs. carhart, the supreme court made clear that there is a, quote, legitimate interest of the government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child, end quote. the supreme court has also made clear that, quote, the government may use its voice

and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman, end quote. and that congress may show such respect for the unborn through, quote, specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition. mr. speaker, i am really troubled by the fact that so many of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge that we're keeling -- dealing with human life in this situation. and the situation of abortion. my heart goes out to any woman who is facing a situation where they're considering abortion. i think every member of our conference feels that way, men and women. nobody takes the issue of abortion lightly.

but unfortunately not enough attention is being paid to the unborn child. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield now three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, congressman dr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i want to thank the gentlelady and all the great work she's done, the gentlelady from north carolina, for all of her work on this. i rise today, mr. speaker, to support the rule and the underlying bill. the pain-capable unborn child protection act. it is so vital. my background, i'm a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies during my career. in addition to that, i'm a husband of 35 years, a father of four, two boys, two girls. a grandfather of two boys and soon, in six weeks, grandfather of a little girl. a little granddaughter. and i'm so proud.

let me tell you a moment about what i witnessed. about the time of the 20 weeks, midterm, the ultrasound, the 4-d ultrasound now gives such an amazing view into the window of that womb. and what did i see? i could see that that little girl looks just like her big brother. number two, in another frame, she's sucking her thumb. and then in another frame she's holding up two fingers as though to say, be patient, i'll be out soon. we have such wonderful technology, such technology that today we can actually do surgery on a fetus at 20 weeks in order to fix a heart ailment or some other condition that may kill the baby in the womb or soon thereafter. but what have we learned from this technology? we've learned that they feel pain. we have to provide anesthesia. now, mr. speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when it comes to animals, they're all about the humane

society and humane treatment of animals. and i have high regard for that. when it comes to the issue of torture or even discomfort for prisoners of war, they're all about supporting that. but what happens in a midterm or later pregnancy when there is an abortion? what happens is just absolute torture. you real autoize -- you realize that in washington, d.c., today, a woman could have an abortion when she's in labor to term. how is the abortion done? how did dr. gosnell do it? stick something into the skull, suck the brain out, dismember the baby limb from limb literally. what torture and what pain, is that really the kind of people we are, mr. speaker? i think not. so we have understood that at least at 20 weeks, maybe sooner, the baby feels pain. and so i would just submit to you today, mr. speaker, that

this bill is not just about abortion, this is about pain, it's about torture to that young life. and we can't say that this is like an amputation of a limb. that baby inside the womb has a distinct d.n.a. that you'll never see again either in history or in the knewture. it is a -- future. it is a different human being that's living there inside of its mother. so i yield my time back and i thank the gentlelady and i am in support of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from kentucky, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kentucky is recognize -- connecticut is ecognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the blatantly unconstitutional underlying legislation, which threatens the health and basic rights of women all over america. right now we should be working to create jobs and grow the

economy. instead here we are again with the majority trying to insert their extreme and divisive ideological preferences into law. and yet again they are trying to impose their traditional view of a woman's role on everyone else. force women back into these traditional roles with limited opportunities. this legislation, which attempts to ban virtually all abortions after 20 weeks, is a clear violation of the law of the land. and has already been struck down in its sponsor's home state of arizona. but don't give much regard for law of the land. witness the number of times they've voted to repeal the affordable care act. 37 times. this bill is anti-choice, anti-constitution, anti-science and it is, yes, anti-women. there is no exception in this bill for women who's health is threatened -- whose health is threatened by carrying a fetus to term. why should we worry about women's health and whether they live or die? instead this bill puts the

federal government squarely between a woman and her doctor. it threatens doctors with five years in jail if they perform a legal, constitutional and sometimes medically necessary procedure. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, does the bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims since 54% of these victims do not report a rape due to intimidation or embarrassment? or under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest victims, would they have to report even if their life is in danger from the perpetrator? and, yes, is it the case that this bill redefines what qualifies as incest by only applying it to a minor? therefore an adult who has been victimized by a relative since childhood and who gets pregnant is not allowed to have an abortion of pregnancy with that relative? simply put this proposed ban is antithetical to ow lawyers, it's an affront to women's health and i oppose -- urge my colleagues to oppose it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. bridenstine: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the pain-capable unborn child protection act. in a report commissioned by the department of justice, a fetal pain expert wrote, it is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation and the pain perceived by the fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns to or older children, unquote. the reality of his statement is seen in the fact that surgeons routinely administer an he is teeshia to unborn children before performing neonatal surgery. at 20 weeks these unborn children feel every bit of pain inflicted on them in the name of choice and in the name of convenience.

mr. speaker, what we do with this knowledge says a lot about us. if we turn a blind eye to the agony and suffering of our most vulnerable, can we say that we are still a nation who pursues life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? if we willingly embrace cruelty in the name of choice, then can we say with integrity that we continue to secure the blessings of liberty not only for ourselves but for our posterity? the good news is that for those who have been affected by the taint of abortion, there is one who chose, who made a real choice to endure pain on behalf of all of us. and by his stripes we are healed. mr. speaker, as members of congress, let us remember that even though we may not be able to hear their cries, we are not be a solved from the guilt of ignoring their pain. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me just thank the gentlelady for yielding but more importantly i just want to thank congresswoman slaughter, our ranking member on the rules committee, for fighting for women's health and the rights of women really all of your life. thank you so much. i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. once again, republicans have decided to make women's health a battleground as part of their, yes, ongoing war on women. the bill on this floor is nothing more than a direct challenge to roe vs. wade and vehicle for yet another ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. in fact, this is the 10th time that the republicans have forced a vote on this topic since taking control of the house in 2011. the bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country and especially women of color who already face

increased stigma and other barriers to reproductive health due to the terrible hyde amendment. now, i remember the days of back-alley abortions. many women died and were permanently injured before roe vs. wade. with this bill, republicans have decided to try to take us back there, to threaten physicians, for instance, with a criminal prosecution. can you imagine? a criminal prosecution for attempting to provide the medically accurate information and care that is best for their patients. why in the world should members of congress or any legislator interfere with women's personal health choices? these private decisions should always be between a woman, her familiar, her doctor or whoever else -- her family, her doctor or whoever else she chooses to help make these very difficult decisions. we should not be making it, not you, nor me. we should let women make their

own decisions. congress has no business in the personal lives of women. no business. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and let's get back -- may i have an additional 10 seconds? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. we need to vote no on this rule and this bill. we need to get back to the real business like creating jobs that we should be doing, like creating economic opportunities we should be doing. we should be trying to figure out how to reduce poverty, we should try to figure out how to ensure our young people have the best quality public education. there are many issues this congress needs to take on. why don't you stay out of the personal -- lives of women? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are accusing us of, we're talking about the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy. nothing in this bill has any

impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks. with that, mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from montana, mr. dains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for two minutes. mr. daines: mr. speaker, as a person of conscience, i believe we are called to protect the most vulnerable in our society. . this act is an important measure to do exactly that, protect unborn children who can feel pain. as parents of four children, two boys and two girls, cindy and i instinctively do all we can as parents to protect our children are pain. during the gosnell trial we all learned the gruesome methods of ending the life of just-born children, some of whom were a little over 20 weeks old. if gods nell aborted these children -- gosnell aborted

these children moments before they were removed from the womb n the method of dismemberment, and science tells us causes pain to the baby, would the loss of life had been any less tragic, any less appalling? we cannot stand idly by and allow such painful terminations of human life to continue. and e passage of this bill i look forward to cassing -- casting my vote in support of the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back of the the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule. i stand here on behalf of the women of hawaii and across the nation that we must continue to protect the fundamental right of

women to have access to safe and legal abortion care. i strongly oppose the underlying bill, h.r. 1797, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. the bill is like a leap backwards for women and our nation. the very premise of this bill is contrary to credible scientific evidence and does not have the widespread support of our leading experts. h.r. 1797 goes against decades old supreme court rulings, roe vs. wade, that gave women a fundamental right to choose, a protection provided in the united states constitution. and states were given the ability to regulate those laws. these proposed federal restrictions are unconstitutional, inappropriate, and unnecessary. abortion is one of the safest medical procedures available in this country, due in large part to the expertise and skill of our nation's trained medical professionals who offer high

quality care to women. this bill would threaten our doctors with five-year prison terms for doing their job, even those that are caring for women who are facing serious health concerns and pregnancies. it is critically important that our laws protect and support the women's health, not deny access to care. abortion care is a private medical decision between a woman and her health care provider. it is not the responsibility of congress to infringe upon that right. that is why the american congress of ob/gyn's, american nurses associations, and 46 other organizations in addition to 15 religious groups stand in strong opposition to this bill. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to stand strongly in opposition to this harmful and misleading bill and vote no on

the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the there is a lot of talk about rights here today. very little talk about the right to life for the babies that are being aborted. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benny chick -- benny check. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromed michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise today in sprofert rule for h.r. 1797, the pain capable unborn child protection act. and to urge my colleagues to support this important and long overdue piece of legislation. mr. benishek: this bill will help protect those in our society who are least able to defend themselves, the unborn. the pain capable act will prohibit late-term abortions

after the 20th week of a pregnancy. for the simple reason that by 20 weeks of development unborn hildren are able to feel pain. this time period is based on extensive scientific research and the majority of the american people are in favor of banning late-term abortions when they know that the unborn child is able to feel pain. as a doctor, i was horrified to hear the stories of gross misconduct and negligence that came to light in the trial of the philadelphia abortionist, kermit gosnell. the callus disregard for innocent human life displayed in the gosnell clinic extended beyond unborn children to adult patients. i believe that there is bipartisan agreement that this was terrible. the pain capable act will help prevent some of the worst abuses that have been perpetrated by kermit gosnell and protect

patients nationwide. as the overwhelming majority of my constituents in northern michigan believe, life inside the womb is just as precious as life outside the womb. and it must be protected. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from which is -- from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, ranking member, and madam speaker. i rise today to voice my strong opposition to h.r. 1797, which would callously and cavalier leerly limit access to abortion for women across the country. i tell you the house g.o.p. has pushed the limits this time by offering this unconstitutional bill. madam speaker, this week the

much maligned miss u.s.a. contestant, miss utah, alluding to the power and dynamics between men and women in the workplace, was lampooned for a flawed answer when she said, and i quote, i think especially the men are seen as the leaders of this and so we need to try to figure out how to create education better so that we can solve this problem. unquote. however inarticulate, i think miss utah was on to something. when you consider the subject at hand, women's right to a medically safe abortion, we once again see men taking leadership roles in invading the privacy and medical decisions of women, now we have before us a bill that is born of ignorance and disregard for medical science in every way, shape, and form.

o concern for the biology, physiology, sociology of the woman. perhaps if we could create education better of the importance of women's lives, we would not be here with this bill before us. this bill is an abomination plain and simple. at its foundation, at its heart is utter disrespect for the dignity and health of women. it also has other harmful effects. i am sympathy -- sympathetic for those women as well who face abortion at 20 weeks. they are often facing complication that is endanger their health or found out about a severely fetal anomaly, others the victims rape or incest. the others the most difficult decisions in their lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker.

medical providers have told us of harrowing tails of women who tell us of life threatening preemclamp see ya with impaired kidney function, dangerously high blood pressure that threatens their health. they tell us of the women who receive an aggressive cancer diagnosis right in the middle of their pregnancy and have to make the difficult choice between their pregnancy and their own life. in situations like these women need to be able to consult their families and their doctors and no one else. perhaps their own priests or rabbi or imam, but most certainly not their politicians. denying member the care they need is hazardous, cruel, and simply the wrong thing to do. and i thank the lady for yielding time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker.

this bill is not born of ignorance but of extremely deep felt concern for unborn children who suffer pain as they are being murdered. madam speaker, i fear for the conscience of our nation because the termination of unborn children, for any reason, is tolerated in some parts of our country throughout pregnancy. even though scientific conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks gestation. it that means literally that a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion. the most common second trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs lims from the infant and it's skull is crushed.

madam speaker, it's even difficult for me to describe this procedure without getting emotional. these procedures are horrific. and in terms of pain like torture to their infant subjects. as a country, we should leave this practice behind. that is why i'm a co-sponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the united states past 20 weeks. nce 1973, approximately 52 million, 52 million, madam speaker, children's lives have been tragically aborted in the united states. it is unconscionable that in america where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an

entire generation of the most vulnerable among us. h.r. 1797 rejects that hypocrisy and provides commonsense protections for unborn children who feel pain just as you and i do. my colleague and friend from arizona, representative trent franks, is a champion for the unborn, and i commend him for authoring this legislation, which prohibits an abortion of an unborn child that is surpassed 20 weeks after fertilization. in light of the recent conviction of philadelphia-based late-term abortionist, kermit gosnell, who was found guilty of first degree murder in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic and then killed through a procedure he called snipping, which involved gosnell inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord, a procedure

reportedly routine in his clinic, we cannot stand idly by. madam speaker, some would have us think that gosnell is an anomaly or outliar. wever, after his conviction, four individuals stepped forward to expose similar practices in other states. americans should be asking how different are these snipping procedures from abortions performed throughout clinics in the country? unfortunately, there is little difference between these procedures. the practice of murdering viable unborn children who can feel pain must end. i urge my colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves and vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to

yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. snyder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois for two minutes. mr. snyder: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 1797. when debating the issue before us, it is born to understand it is not matter of conscience but issue with very real and potentially life aveltering implications for women and families across the nation. mr. enyart: it is my fundamental belief that the right to choose is and must remain a personal health decision that a woman makes in consultation with her doctor without government intervention. additionally, we should also be promoting policy that is strife to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies from family planning, as well as effective sex education. sadly, rather than coming together to address our fiscal challenges and help stimulate job creation, the majority

continues to doggedly pursue ard cal agenda. this legislation like other attempts to restrict women's access to comprehensive health care is unacceptable and could seriously endanger the health and safety of women across the country. as such i firmly oppose the underlying bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. . i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i now -- five ee minutes minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i thank the chair and i want to thank my good friend and colleague for yielding. you know, madam speaker, pain -- we all dread it, we avoid it, we even fear it, and we all go through extraordinary

lengths to mitigates the severity and its duration. there are kermit gosnells, madam speaker, all over america today inflicting not only violence, cruelty and death among very young children but excruciating pain as well. many americans, including some who self-identify as pro-choice, were shocked and dismayed by the gosnell expo zeh and trial. -- expose and trial. it has made it difficult to understand the morality. even after 40 years of abortion on demand and over 55 million dead babies and millions of wounded moms, many until gosnell somehow construed abortion as victimless and painless. that has changed. the brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies, e mystically called --

euphemismically called snipping. you know, i note paraphernalia theycally, according to the legal defense fund, the u.s. is among of only four nations in the world that allows for abortion for any reason after viability and only one of nine nations that ok's abortion after nine weeks. we are in some pretty bad company, madam speaker, because that includes china and north korea. we are far outside the global mainstream. i would note, madam speaker, that like gosnell, abortion is all over america decapitate, they dismember and they chemically poison babies to death each and every day. that's what they do. americans are connecting the dots and asking whether the gosnell -- and what gosnell did is really different than what other abortionists do. i would note to my colleagues

that a d&e abortion is a common method is a gruesome, pain-filled act. that literally rips and tears the pieces of the body parts of the child. the pain-capable unborn child protection is a modest but -- act is a modest way to protect babies who are 20 weeks old and pain-capable from having to suffer and die from abortion. i would note to my colleagues that a majority of americans are with us, trying to protect lives. according to a recent gallup poll, 64% of americans believe that abortion should not be permitting in the second three months of pregnancy. 80% say abortion should not be permitting in the last three months of pregnancy. the polling company found that 63% of women believe that abortion should not be permitted at the point after -- after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can

feel pain. the women get it and they have so polled when asked if they were against this kind of pain for babies. the pain-capable unborn child protection act recognizes the medical evidence that unborn children indeed feel pain. we're not living in the dark ages. one leading expert in the field of fetal pain, a doctor at the university of tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the u.s. department of justice, that, quote, in my opinion, the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation. if not earlier and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by termed newborns and older children. surgeons today entering the wound to perform corrective procedures, madam speaker, on unborn children have seen these babies flinch, jerk, recoil from sharp objects and incisions. surgeons routinely

administrator anesthesia to unborn children in the womb. we know that the children are to be treated as a patient and there are many sicknesses that can be treated when the child s enute row. dr. colleen malloy, at northwestern university, in her testimony before the house judiciary committee in may of 2012, said when we speak of infants at 20 weeks postfertilization we no longer have to rely on ultrasound imagery because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. in other words, there are children the same age can be killed by abortion who are born and now being given life-saving assistance. she went on to say in today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are

able to witness their utero growth. i can never subjecting my tiny patients to the horrific procedures. i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, thank you, madam speaker. i join my many colleagues today who have spoken out against this outrageous bill. i also want to object the way that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought p h.r. 1797 for consideration. when a bill that affects the lives and the health of women all across our country is coming up for this consideration, we deserve to have an open process. but instead, the majority is taking a rather undemocratic approach blocking all

amendments to this harmful bill. beyond the fact that the bill is unconstitutional, it endangers the lives of women across our country. it places a ban on abortions with the narrowist of rape and incest exceptions, and it forces -- it forces a woman who has been raped to report the attack to law enforcement before seeking an abortion. so i have to ask these questions. do the sponsors of this legislation understand the trauma that a rape survivor endures? and do they understand what a cruel message that is to send to a woman in her time of greatest need? you know, madam speaker, those of us who are here in the congress i believe we all came here to solve the problems of the day. as we address our national

priorities. is this issue high on their list? is this the issue that gives people confidence that congress understands the challenges that people throughout america face today? i know what those challenges are, i think. i've listened to my constituents. they worry about putting food on the table, a roof over their heads and sending their kids to college. so here we are with a very narrow agenda, with an issue that is being used to strike at the heart of women's health issues. i urge my colleagues to please reject this bill, this rule and the underlying bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. even kermit gosnell's own

defense attorney having gone through all the evidence at trial said, quote, i've come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad dermer. it should be more like 16, 17 weeks. that would be a far better thing, and i think the law should be changed to that. i think pro-choice would have still the right to choose, but they've got to choose quicker. we are talking here, madam speaker, about the beginning of the sixth month of pregnancy. nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, may i inquire if my colleague has other requests for time? ms. foxx: madam speaker, we will use the balance of our ime. ms. slaughter: that leaves me

uninformed. but i want to introduce the previous question before i do my closing, and i'm hoping you are prepared to close. is that correct? ms. foxx: no, madam speaker, i am not just yet ready to close, but if my colleague is ready to close -- ms. slaughter: no. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: is the gentlewoman from new york ready to close? i thought that was the question she was asking. ms. slaughter: that is the question i asked you. i am prepared -- mr. connolly s my last speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york like to recognize the gentleman? ms. slaughter: not until i find out if we're prepared to close. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i would recognize myself for such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx:, mr. speaker, the development of unborn children is further understood. doctors can perform life-saving surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the pregnancy than ever before. when a baby's born prema turrill, medical innovation is increasing the likelihood of that baby's survival. babies born as early as 20 weeks postfertilization is being cared for across the country. by eight weeks after fertilization the unborn child reacts to touch. by 20 weeks postfertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. the baby responds the same way you and i respond to pain by recoiling from it.

as doctor anaund at the university of tennessee has considered the leading expert in the field of feetle pain and stated in a report -- fetal pain and stated in a report accepted by a federal judge as expert testimony that, quote, it is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense han that perceived by termed newborns or older children, end quote. surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely administrator anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgeries. according to planned parent ahood, the largest abortion provider in america, babies

aborted at 14 weeks or later are subjected to a painful dismemberment abortion which involves inserting a long steel tool into the womb and grabbing usually an arm or a leg, tearing it from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. the procedure is repeated as the baby is torn limb from limb until his or her entire body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. the dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the second trimuster. another abortion procedure involves injecting potassium chloride into the baby's heart which induces cardiac arrest and the baby's killed. madam speaker, it's important that the american people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word abortion. it is a heartwrenching, painful

procedure that tears a baby limb from limb before crushing his or her head or it is a poisonous chemical injection. a march, 2013, poll conducted by the polling company found that 64% of the public supports the law like the pain-capable unborn child protection act, prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks. when an unborn baby can feel pain unless the life of the mother is in danger. supporters included 47% of those who identified themselves as pro-choice in the poll. 63% of women believes abortion should not be permitting after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. madam speaker, congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the womb is

performed in our country. that is why it is necessary for congress to pass h.r. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn children from this excruciating pain. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a summary of the evidence of the unborn pain research. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves her time. the gentlelady from new york. . miss slaurlter: congress should not be standing around while this is going on. congress should also not be standing around while college loan rates are doubling and we have so many people out of work. i'm delighted to yield two minutes to my friend from new york, the gentlewoman, carolyn maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank my fellow

new yorker and good friend for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in this body on so many, many issues. particularly in the area of health. we lleagues, once again need to ask ourselves where were the women? when the judiciary committee produced this outrageous assault on women's health and women's reproductive rights. the answer is very clear on this panel, there is not one female face participating in this crucial issue in their health care. absolutely nowhere. this is a photo of the members of the judiciary subcommittee that held a hearing on this legislation before us and not republican on that panel is a woman. and the bill that was produced

is evidence that women did not participate in this decisionmaking. for example, it was not until the chair of that subcommittee made a comment not worthy of this house that the majority added an insulting and narrow exception for pregnancies resulting from rape. last november women came out in droves to say, keep your laws off our bodies, out of our personal lives, and out from between women and their doctor. this bill that a man sponsored, that an all-male panel has approved, jeopardizes the health and well-being of women and only women. it is indifferent to the rights of women and only women. and it is callous to the concerns of women and only women. and i can promise you that women

will long remember this. they will remember it today. they will remember it tomorrow. and they will remember it at the polls when they select their representatives. i yield back to my distinguished colleague, my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. excuse me, north carolina. ms. foxx: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. madam speaker, if we can defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the house to hold a vote on the student loan relief act. if congress doesn't act next month, the undergraduate students across this country will see a doubling of their student loan interest rates and to discuss our proposal i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. court nifment the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut for two minutes. mr. courtney: i rise to oppose the previous question so that the house can take up the

student loan relief act, h.r. 1595, which is a bill that the american people are truly concerned about and watching congress to see whether or not we do the right thing. in 2012 as this chart shows, the subsidized stafford student loan rate will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. this will add to the debt burden of the average college student with a stafford student loan portfolio of about approximately $5,000. today the average student is leaving college with an average debt level of about $25,000 to $26,000. we know the big numbers, $1.1 trillion in student loan debt in the u.s. economy. more than credit cards. more than used cars. yet we are standing here 12 days before the doubling of this rate, we are debating a bill which is right in the middle of the polarized gridline politics that the american voters rejected soundly in the last election rather than dealing with the bread and butter issues that really matter to young

americans and middle class families all across this country. the fact of the matter is we know, young people in this country need to get a post high school degree, whether it's a two-year degree or four-year degree. the stafford student loan program is the workhorse of providing affordable loans for millions of students. 7.5 million students use the stafford subsidized student loan program. yet if we don't act in 12 days, that 7.5 million are going to see their interest rates double to 6.8%. we may hear from the other side, we took up a bill on may 23, h.r. 1911, a bill with a variable rate that we now know from the congressional budget office which you are to report this past monday will be worse than if we did nothing and allow the rate to go to 6.8%. that's been not only verified by this congressional budget office but also by the education trust and institute for college access and success, a nonpartisan group funded by the bill and melinda

gates foundation. the walton family trust. and it states very clearly if passed it will lead to hire rates of all types of federal student and parent loans than if congress did nothing at all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. courtney: 187 members have signed a discharge petition. it is time to afpblgt the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well, and as our colleague from connecticut has acknowledged, the house has passed a bill to take care of the issue of student loan rates doubling on july 1. however the senate has refused to act on the bill. what we passed was what the president asked for in his budget. and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue. and doesn't support it any more. the house has done its job. we are now waiting for the

senate and the president to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. we have not been priffleous about this. we are not ignoring -- frivolous about this. we are not ignoring the issue. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina reserves her time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. on july 1 young women in college face the doubling of federal student interest loan rates. it the rights of our daughters and grand taughttories access safe and legal reproductive care, we should be ensuring the cost of college doesn't vote at the end of the month. and when it comes to the most personal and important decision as woman will ever make, we deserve the privacy and freedom to make the decision that's right for us. no matter how many women the majority trots out to advance their agenda, their attempts to take away our reproductive

rights will not stand. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert with the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i urge my colleagues to vote no to defeat the previous question and urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to point out that none of the members on the other side of the aisle have even acknowledged the pain that unborn children feel or the fact that half of those babies that are being murdered are little girls. madam speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. it's sacred and god-given. but millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this the freest country in the world. this is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we as a

nation stand for. before liberty, equality, free speech freedom of conscience, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life. and yet for millions of aborted infants many pain capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been denied. and an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. why day we hope it will be different. we hope life will cease to be valued on the sliding scale. we hope the era of elective abortions ushered in by an un-elected court will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in american history. but until that day it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life. regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot. and we will continue to pray to

the ones who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. may we in love defend the unborn. may we in humility confront this national sin and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation. madam speaker, we go to extraordinary -- extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings but even animals because we value life so much. however there are many who do ot hold the unborn in the same esteem and that is tragic. for more than one million unborn babies every year there's nothing more important than

protecting voiceless unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. therefore i urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 266, if

ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 1151. this will be a 15-minute vote. a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229 and the nays are 196. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution and those in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i request 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. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232 and the nays are 193. the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 11:51 on which the yeas and nays were ordered and which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1151, a bill to dreck the secretary of state to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for taiwan at the trienial international civil aviation organization assembly and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 424. the nays are zero. 424 recorded as present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 266 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1947. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the whole.

he chair:

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1947 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma.

mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill h.r. 1947. the chair: that request will have to be made in the full house. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the committee will be in order. the committee will come to order. members are requested to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. if he'll suspend a moment, the ommittee will come to order. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support

of h.r. 1947, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013. this bipartisan bill is four years in the making and i could not have had had a better partner than mr. peterson. he led us in the countryside to have eight field hearings across this great nation. we followed up those field hearings with a series of 11 audit hearings on every single policy under the jurisdiction of the house committee on agriculture. in all we held 40 hearings on every aspect of this farm bill. the result is legislation that calls for recused spending, smaller government and commonsense reform. the committee has held two . rkups of this essential bill the first last congress and one last month. both of those markups lasted for more than 12 hours each. we considered over 200 amendments in total.

in the end we achieved a large bipartisan margin of support. the vote tally this year was 36-10 with 23-25 republicans and 13-21 democrats supporting it. some of my colleagues were amazed by the duration of the markup. but i came to congress to legislate and an important part of the legislative process is an open and fair debate. the speaker shares shah sentiment and i hope during the -- shares that sentiment and i hope during the debate on the amendments in the farm act, we'll let the body work its will. and we'll vote for final passage. the farm act is different for many reasons. there is a reason that we put reform in the title. this is the most reform-minded bill in decades. it repeals outdated policies while reforming, streamlining and consolidating over 100 government programs. it reforms the snap act, also

known as the food stamp program, for the first time since the welfare reforms of 1996. and it makes tremendous reforms to the farm programs. the agriculture committee and the agriculture community have voluntarily worked together to make these reforms and to contribute to deficit reduction. every part of this bill is a part of the solution to washington's spending problems. we save the american taxpayer nearly $40 billion which is almost seven times the amount of cuts to these programs under sequestration. regarding reforms for traditional farm programs, first of all, we eliminate direct payments. they cost taxpayers $5 billion a year. they were payments that people received every year, regardless of the market conditions. and whether or not they farmed. instead we take a more market-oriented approach to policy where there is no support when market prices are

high. we encourage responsible risk management where farmers are able to plan for catastrophic events. in addition, -- in addition to eliminating direct payments, we repeal the acre act. the disaster program for crops and the countercyclical program. my philosophy from the beginning of the farm bill process has been that these programs had to be based on market economies. they had to work for all crops in all regions of the country. our bill achieves this. while also saving $23 billion which is a record 36% spending reduction. and conservation, a subject near and dear to my heart, we streamlined the delivery of these incredibly important programs. during our hearings we learned that conservation programs had grown in number and in complication, often acting as a deterrent for the adoption of these voluntary incentive-based programs. therefore the farm act eliminates and consolidates 23

ue publictific and overlapping -- due -- duplicative and overlapping programs into 13 which saves $7 billion. we authorize and strengthen and fully pay for livestock disaster assistance. that is incredibly important to our livestock producers during devastating droughts such as the ones we are experiencing recently. the bill invests in special crop initiatives like the special block grants, pest and disease management and prevention programs and the farm act also maintains our investment in agricultural research. you know, my friends, i've had a lot of my colleagues ask me, frank, why do you get so excited about these issues? why do you get so stirred up? you're usually a pretty calm, laid-back fella. let me tell you, i come from a part of the country that was the abyss of the great depression and the drought of the 1930's. some of of you may have seen

mr. burn's documentary about the dust bowl. those are my constituents. those were my relatives in roger mills county, as well as the panhandle. i was raised by a generation, my grandparents, who were young men and women during the great depression, who lived through that drought. they were scarred forever. my maternal grandfather co-signed my first farm lease, co-signed my note at the bank so that i could start farming. but he was convinced until the day he died, just as my other grandfather was, the great depression was coming back. it was coming back. and my parents were young men and women in the 50's and they went -- 1950's and they went through the drought of the 1950's. far worse than the drought of the 1930's. until the day he died my father was convinced that it would never rain again and i came home from college in 1982 just in time to observe the collapse in agricultural land prices.

i was raised by the generation that suffered through the 1930's and the 1950's. i came home to watch the vietnam generation be destroyed by things beyond -- farmers be destroyed by things beyond their control in the 1980's. that's why i get so worked up on this policy. the misery of the 1930's, the misery of the 1980's economically was not an accident. it was policy mistakes in the 1920's and 1930's that led to that agony. it was policy mistakes in the 1970's and 1980's that lead to that agony. you say, frank, you're excited, you're getting worked up. look at the 1930 census for roger mills county. there were 14,000 people living in my home county. by the 1940 census, there were 7,000 people living in my home county. and we've just now made it back to the mid 3,000's.

you don't have that kind of economic devastation, depopulation, suffering by accident. that's why i'm here. that's why i'm working with my colleague, the ranking member, mr. peterson. that's why i've worked with republicans, democrats alike for years now to get to this point. that's why i want to work with all of you. i cannot make it rain. there may be people in this town who say they can make it rain but i cannot make it rain. but in my tenure as chairman of the house agriculture committee, i can make sure we pass a comprehensive farm bill that does not repeat the mistakes of the 1920's and 1930's. does not repeat the mistakes of the 1970's and 1980's. i will not be a part of inflicting on future generations what was inflicted on what i call that generation of vietnam veterans who came

home to farm and instead went to the bankruptcy auctions. or my grandparents' generation, young men and women who were wiped out in the 1930's. i will not be a part of that. so i will work with all of you so try and improve this draft that attempts to produce a safety net that is workable, that is efficient, both for rural america and producers, but also for consumers. i ask to you work with me in that regard. i ask you to do the right thing. i ask you to avoid the mistakes of the past. i ask you to look at the language, to study the language and be good, responsible legislators. thank you very much. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. he gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: thank you. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: and i want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman, who by the way has done an outstanding job of putting this bill together. and with the exception of maybe some differences on the snap title of the bill, i have to say that i wouldn't really -- if i was still chairman, i wouldn't have a bill that's much different than what the chairman and i have put together. and maybe one of the reasons for that is that my family has a similar background to mr. lucas' family. we went through -- my grandfather went through the depression. my father almost got brumented by some of the nonsense that went on during that period of time -- bankrupted by some of the nonsense that went on during that period of time. he's right. policymakers a big difference in agriculture. i stand with him in never going back to a time where we don't give our farmers and ranchers the safety net they need to operate in a very risky and now

capital-intensive business. so today we're debating a new five-year farm bill and as the chairman said, the process has gone on long enough. we started the debate on this when i was still chairman and it's time for us to pass a bill. this farm bill gives farmers and ranchers the necessary tools to provide american consumers with the safest, most abundant, most affordable food supply in the world. the bill includes farm, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy and special crop programs. with roughly 16 million american jobs tied to agriculture, the farm bill is a jobs bill. the rural economy remains strong during our nation's financial crisis and in my part of the world it was agriculture that kind of kept us going through that process. this is why the farm bill is so important.

failing to pass a new five-year farm bill could potentially devastate our rural economy. why would we jeopardize the one part of the economy that has been and continues to be working? i often tell people that the agriculture committee is probably the least partisan of all the committees in congress. and that doesn't happen by accident. we listen to each other, we try to understand each other, work together and at the end of the day have the best interests of our constituents in mind. the bill before us today is a complo mice that reintellectual -- compromise that reflects that tradition. it's a compromise between commodities and regions, urban and rural members. i didn't get everything i wanted, chairman lucas didn't get everything he wanted. but that's how the legislative process is supposed to work. the bill makes major reforms to farm programs, repealing direct payments and thank saves taxpayers nearly $40 billion -- that saves taxpayers nearly $40 billion a year.

ensures farmers won't get a government subsidy for doing nothing. instead producers are given a choice between two countercyclical farm safety net programs addressing either price declines or revenue losses, which ever support the farmer's need during difficult times. the bill also sets new income requirements so individual millionaires won't receive farm payments and continues the no-cost sugar program. h.r. 1947 also makes significant reforms to dairy programs. the result of more than four years of work that we've done on the committee and compromise within the dairy industry. the new dairy safety net will address the volatility of the dairy market, help consumers by making all milk prices more stable and hopefully eliminate the price spikes that have been normal in today's marketplace. the 2008 farm bill was the first farm bill to address the growing demand for fresh fruits and vegetables, local foods and

organics. the 2013 farm bill continues this investment by increasing funding for specialty crop block grants, providing support for farmers market and local food promotion programs and authorizing the very first organic checkoff for research and promotion. we also recognize the challenges facing many beginning farmers by including support for outreach and education to beginning socially disadvantaged and military veteran farmers and ranchers. the bill also streamlines and reforms current conservation programs, better targeting resources to allow farmers and ranchers to continue to preserve our valuable natural resources. now, a lot of attention has been given to the bill's cuts to the nutrition programs. more than $20 billion over 10 years in this bill. personally, i would have preferred we updated the income limits in the current snap program so that we would have

treated everybody in the country the same. you know, we looked at that, we weren't able to come to a consensus so we didn't move in that direction. so we have cuts to nutrition spending in this bill and they've received most of the attention in this regard. but we also like to point out that there's additional support for community food projects, with a focus on low-income communities, and it provides more resources to help usda's anti-trafficking efforts. so while i think it's ridiculous to cut hundreds of billions of dollars out of nutrition programs as some members have called for, i also don't think it's realistic to say that we can't cut one penny from these programs. because clearly there isn't a government program that could stand -- couldn't stand some reductions. so i think what we've done here at the end of the day is

responsible reform that's a middle ground, that will allow us to continue and complete the work on this bill. so i know we're going to have a lot of amendments, i guess starting tomorrow. but it's my opinion, as the chairman's opinion, that in order for us to get a bill to conference, we need to go through this process and stick together on the committee so we can have a bill that can be conferenced and get this bill signed before september 30 when the current law expires. we need to keep this a bipartisan bill and not stray too far from what was approved in committee and, you know, i know that the compromise -- i know that compromise is rare around here, but it's what is needed to finally get a new five-year farm bill completed and that is our objective. so, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time and yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i'd like to yield to

the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the farm bill. the american people want to cut spending and red tape and i honestly believe the american people want to have their food grown right here in america. it's my opinion this farm bill accomplishes both those goals. this farm bill also cuts spending for agriculture programs by over $40 billion. that's billion with a b. the bill eliminates or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by usda. it also ends the often criticized direct payments to farmers. the farm bill also cuts $20 billion in mandatory spending on food stamps over the next 10 years. many opponents of the bill have characterized this legislation as a bill to support the expansion of food stamps. couldn't be further from the truth. like many of my colleagues here, i believe the food stamp program is wasteful and open to fraud. food stamp spending has doubled since 2008. it's tripled since 2002. without reform, food stamp

spending will continue to increase through loopholes, the obama administration has used to expand the program. that's why we should pass this farm bill, and i agree it's not perfect, but passage allows the house to join with the senate in conference to pursue further reforms that is one step closer to signing this into law. with that, madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to vote yes on the farm bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: madam chair, pleased to yield two minutes to the second ranking member of the house agriculture committee, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcintyre: thank you, madam speaker. for decades congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft farm bills that protect and support our farmers, strengthen rural economic development, encourage conservation and provide nutritional support for the most vulnerable in society. these bills have generally received wide bipartisan support. this year i was pleased to once again work with my colleagues on the agriculture committee to advance a strong reform-minded,

fiscally responsible and bipartisan farm bill. this bill preserves the farm safety net and provides regional equity while consolidating over 100 programs and making targeted cuts to rein in federal spending and move toward a balanced budget. these reforms will save almost $40 billion. do you realize less than 1% of our entire federal budget is agriculture? yet, by god's grace, it feeds us all. the farm bill is critical, not nly to our nation -- i know in north carolina agribusiness and rming supports countless families. we talk about economic opportunities for families in rural america. we're talking about the farm bill. last congress we brought a broad bipartisan bill, but the committee was never able to get a vote on the floor. now's our chance. now's the critical time for rural america. people in our rural communities do count, and they ought to

have the opportunity to have a farm bill voted upon. now is the time that our farmers need to be able to plan for the future, and now we must have that opportunity to give them the chance to plan, to help feed all of us. this is the place, now is the time, now we have that opportunity to do something about it. delay is serious, not only for our farmers but for all of us. short-term extensions only provide a band-aid. uncertainty diminishes agriculture's ability to face the challenges for a growing population in our country and indeed a growing rural population. yes, rural americans are willing to do their part to cut the deficit and rein in spending, but we should not disproportionately put the burden upon the backs of families in small towns across america. we hope you will stand together and let's get the farm bill down for all americans. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i rise too to yield to the subcommittee chairman conaway

from the great state of texas two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam chairman. i -- mr. conaway: thank you, madam chairman. i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. the chair: without objection. mr. conaway: i want to thank them for getting this bill to the point. it's been bipartisan and an honor to work with both of these gentlemen. this bill wasn't written overnight. this bill is the result of four years of debate, two-year audit program of every single policy in the usda as well as 40 hearings and now the second markup this last month and now the floor debate. this landmark bill saves taxpayers billions over the next 10 years while making the greatest reforms in food policies since 1996. there are many reasons why this balanced, equitable and market-oriented farm bill is deserving support. as we consider this legislation, i hope every member of congress will know how important it is to walk the walk rather than talk the walk. this is not an opportunity for

theatrics. the difference between those who don't support this legislation and those who do are simple. the first group talks about cutting spending, talks about cutting the deficit, talks about making reforms, talks about reducing the size of government. and the and its supporters actually does all of these things. $40 billion in additional government spending, 100 programs that we on the committee believe outlive their usefulness and we'll continue the runaway spending programs within the snap program without the reforms that we put in place with this bill. opposing this bill is a vote for the status quo -- a vote against this bill is a vote for the status quo in washington. i could go back to my district and tell my constituents i voted against this bill because i am a fiscal conservative. knowing full well what i really did was leave washington with a spending spigot fully turned on. i won't my fellow members won't do it either. this bill provides food safety for our nation's security. a nation that produces its own

food is more secure. i serve in the armed services committee and house intelligence committee and i see the dangers that our country faces every day. it is not in our nation's best interest to depend on other countries on our food supply like we do in our areas like energy. farmers and ranchers across the country, including more than 80 in the home state of texas supports this. i encourage my colleagues pass this bill. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize one of our subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. costa: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to highlight the important and positive reforms in this year's farm bill that includes the dairy subtitle as we try to improve and save money for the federal agriculturele reform and risk management -- agriculture reform and risk management act, otherwise known as the 2013 farm bill. i want to thank chairman lucas

and ranking member peterson for the terrific work they've done in having this bipartisan effort. it's never easy. i can tell you as a grandson of two generations of dairy farmers in california that what american farmers do every day is work as hard as they possibly can to provide the highest value food quality at the most cost-effective level to american consumers and they've been doing it for generations. in the dairy security act of this bill, it's a result of four years of hard work and compromises by dairy producers and other members of the dairy industry across the country. this program's intended to provide strong market-based, safety net that will keep dairy producers afloat and stable consumer prices. the dairy industry and producers, especially, have been a victim in recent years because of dramatic price volatility and so have the consumers. at the same time producers have

been forced to deal with food costs that have -- feed costs that have skyrocketed from $2 a bushel to $7 a bushel and that has had a dramatic impact. they've seen their overhead increase as profits have remained stagnant. current dairy policy continues to foster, outdated support programs which no longer provide meaningful safety net are not ensuring any stability for our dairy farmers or consumers. in california, the leading dairy state in the nation, we've lost hundreds of dairies result of bankruptcy in the last 18 months. something needs to be done. we need to fix this broken system. the -- this title brings -- provides stability to the producers and benefits the consumers as well. the time is to bring meaningful reform and this measure does this. i ask my colleagues to support this effort as we move along this bipartisan compromise. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i recognize the subcommittee

chairman, mr. craffered from arkansas, for two minutes -- crawford from arkansas, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. crawford: i thank the gentlemen for crafting the 2013 farm bill. i especially want to thank the farmers and ranchers across rural america for their patience as we worked through this long, difficult process. madam chairman, the bill before us today is the extensive outreach for farmers and ranchers and stakeholders -- input that we received from our rural constituents. the agriculture committee made this possible through holding a series of farm bill hearings in nearly every region of the country, allowing them to contribute to the farm bill process by having their voices heard. i had an opportunity to host one of those field hearings in my hometown of jonesboro where all types of producers from arkansas and around the mid south region had the chance to

testify. they share the commitment with the challenges they face and the modern agriculture of the economy and provided suggestions about how the farm bill can be tailered to reflect their new sneak risk in the marketplace. this feedback was critical to help meet the needs of producer -- they are willing to do their part to reduce the deficit. this willingness has allowed the ag committee to craft a farm bill that saves nearly $40 billion. no easy task, mind you, and the committee had to make some tough choices. but i believe we were able to balance the needs of our producers with the need to pay down the debt. it saves taxpayers money, reduces deficit spending and repeals outdated programs while streamlining and constraining others, whether it's the consolidation of conservation programs or eliminating abuse in the food stamp program. every part of this bill contributes fairly to deficit reduction. i proudly support the 2013 farm bill and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: madam chairman, -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize mr. wals from minnesota for two -- mr. walz from minnesota for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. walz: i want to thank the chair and ranking member who crafted a great piece of legislation, saving taxpayer money, supporting jobs, streamlining efficiency and eliminating burdensome programs. i'd also especially like to say they've done it with dignity, they've done it with grace, they've done it with the respect and thoughtfulness of this institution. i tell you, the american people need a lot of that. last week we had a poll that showed us a 10% approval rating. the north koreans are at 17%. that ought to tell you something here. it would be funny if it wasn't so dang disappointing. the sacrifices that went into us doing the basic needs. the american public did not believe we could fulfill the basic needs. well, you know what, they're wrong on this. we're going to do it in here,

with the leadership of these two gentlemen who have spoken before. we need to make sure that this piece of legislation goes through the process, it's amended by the members of this house in an appropriate manner and we move it forward. i can tell you for those who say we'd be better off doing an extension, that's not what my dairy folks are telling he -- me when they're struggling day-to-day to help their herds. no funding means no funding for livestock disaster program. the average age of a farmer is 58 years. i urge my colleagues, take a look at this, do what you're hearing people do. this is reforming. this is smart policy and it also gives the american people food security. we feed 316 million americans. our farmers do. and billions worldwide. and i ask my colleagues, look over our shoulder in this quote by daniel webster.

let us try and develop something worth being remembered for. i urge passage of this bill and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i yield to the subcommittee chairman from georgia, mr. scott, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this farm bill. i, along with many others in this room, have worked on drafting a farm bill that meets the needs of our agriculture producers and consumers, have taken part in audit hearings, met with grossers and consumers. we have -- grocers and consumers. through all of this, i've gained knowledge of many unnecessary programs and the fraud and abuse that plagues these programs. i also have a new found appreciation for the farm bill and its value to the american citizens. my granddad always said, the farm bill is for times -- when times are bad. not when they are good. several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have reasons to vote against the

bill. some say it cuts too much. for others it doesn't cut enough. let me be clear, this bill is a good step in the right direction. it will reduce federal spending. it reduces the fraud, abuse and waste in many of the government programs that are in the government today. i'd like to share a few facts with you if we don't pass this bill, $40 billion is the amount of money that will be spent on outdated commodity programs that we have cut out of this bill. $11 million is the number of additional -- 11 million is the number of additional programs that we have cut out of this bill. we have also reduced snap payments on -- for about two million people who should not qualify for them anyway. some of the reforms of the nutrition title, restrictions in the use of the liheap program, eliminating lottery winners from qualifying for snap benefits and eliminating state performance bonuses in

advertising for the program. as my friend, mr. conaway of texas asked, is this a legislative moment or a theater moment? madam speaker, i submit that this is a true legislative moment. during this time we need to act on the facts. farmers and families need the certainty of long-term agriculture policy so they can continue to be the cornerstone of our nation. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields and reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from massachusetts mcgovern.nutes, mr. the chair: scombrafment massachusetts is recognized for -- the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i want to thank the gentlemen for their hard work. they've spent countless hours on this bill and so have their staffs and i appreciate their dedication and i very much wanted to support farm bill. and so it is with the deep regret that i come to the floor

so to say that i cannot support this farm bill. because -- the main reason is because of the $20.5 billion cut in the snap program. that is too much. that is too harsh. two million people will lose their benefits, over 200,000 kids will be knocked out of the free breakfast and lunch program. those aren't my statistics or a liberal think tank's statistics, that's what c.b.o. says, the congressional budget office. what happens to these two million people? where do they go? where do they get food? the fact of the matter is food is not a luxury, it is a necessity. and there are some who have said that all we are doing is reforming snap and we are dealing with the rising costs. well, if we were truly reforming snap i'd feel better about it if we held at least one hearing on it in the committee or on the subcommittee. and in terms of dealing with the rising costs, the best way to deal with that is invest in

our economy and put people back to work. when more people go to work, the number of people on snap goes down. it's countercyclical. that's how you decrease spending on snap. madam speaker, we have 50 million people -- 50 million people in this country who are hungry. 17 million are kids. we all should be ashamed. we ought to be having a discussion on how to end hunger in america. snap is one tool in the anti-hunger toolbox to end hunger. we need to have a broader discussion. but i can say with certainty at cutting snap by $20.5 billion will not alleviate hunger in america. it will cause more pain, more suffering and more misery. i want a farm bill that not only helps our farmers but moves us toward a day where we no longer have hunger in america. unfortunately this bill as written will make hunger worse. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to subcommittee chairman thompson

from pennsylvania two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of house agriculture committee's 2013 farm bill. this legislation is a product of three years of extensive hearings, research and fact-finding. the bill eliminates outdated farm programs, direct payments, countercyclical payments, the average crop revenue election program, and the supplemental revenue assistance payments, for example. these programs are part of an old system and need to be eliminated. regarding snap and food stamps, we have made significant reforms. specifically we've closed a number of loopholes and have eliminated categorical eligibility. where we have eliminated these loopholes such as automatic enrollments, the bill still allows for eligibility based on income to ensure that those who truly need the assistance continue to have access. for the second consecutive congress, i've had the privilege to chair the subcommittee on conservation, energy and forestry. and at the subcommittee level we were success envelope consolidating and cleaning up a

number of programs. the bill consolidates 23 conservation programs down to 13. and i believe it achieves this without negatively impacting the effectiveness or the goals of the programs. week of also included several provisions to promote the health of our nation's forests. agriculture is the number one industry in pennsylvania and i am pleased to see that we're bringing much-needed reform to the commonwealth's top sector, dairy. first and foremost this bill repeals all of the old dairy price support system and replaces that system with a free market margin program. like many of my colleagues, i have significant concern with the supply management portion. dairy title, however we can address this matter in the amendment process. this bill is not perfect. whoever does make significant changes to both farm and nutrition programs and will save the taxpayer over $40 billion. but without passage of this bill, none of these reforms will be made. none of the savings will be realized and we will continue these broken policies or revert even worse, to the permanent

law from the 1930's and the 1940's. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and i thank both the chairman and ranking member for their leadership. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield to former member, mr. cuellar -- mr. cuellar from texas, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of the importance of passing the new five-year farm bill in -- into law. i first want to thank chairman lucas for all the good work that he's done and my ranking member, mr. peterson, i still call him my ranking member, mr. peterson, for all the work that he and the other members of the agriculture committee, in a bipartisan way, included with the staff that worked so hard to make sure that we get this farm bill. as you know, we did pass an extension which was not the right thing to do but we did an extension. we need to provide some sort of continuity with a five-year program and as you know, this is something that we need this to be done in a bipartisan way

and this is what the committee has done. after having numerous field hearings, after making some changes to provide some reform, reform that will save the taxpayers over $40 billion in funding over the next 10 years through important reforms and commodity conservation, nutrition agencies. i don't like the cuts to the nutrition but i do understand this is a process. we got to get into a conference committee, work with the senate and therefore i'm asking the members to support the process and get this bill where we can support it in a bipartisan way. so, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. hudson: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in strong support of the farm bill. a product of several years of hard work and patience from chairman lucas, ranking member peterson and their staffs on the agriculture committee. i would like to call attention to the patience of our farming community across this nation,

the economic engine of rural america, and especially to the farming families in the eighth district of north carolina, which i call home. when i go home every weekend and travel across my district, i hear one resounding thing. and that is, get a five-year farm bill done to provide us the certainty we need. this bill's not perfect. in my opinion, it is not -- it does not contain enough cuts and reforms, but our alternative is the status quo. i'd like to see more cuts and will offer and support amendments to do just that. but ultimately i will support this bill because not supporting it, again, means the status quo. not supporting this bill means not getting over $40 billion in mandatory cuts when we have the chance. not supporting this bill means not having a five-year bill to provide certainty that our farmers need. from the important provisions found in the commodities title to ensuring the critical safety net of crop insurance remains in tact, to make -- intact, to making responsible cuts and reforms to bloated programs, saving the taxpayers money, this bill is a bill we need to support. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves.

the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize a new member of our committee, mr. enyart from illinois, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. enenthank you, madam chair. -- mr. enyart: thank you, madam chair. thank you, ranking member peterson. madam speaker, i rise today in support of this important and long overdue legislation. when i ran for congress i pledged to work for southern illinois' agricultural industry. that's why i voted in committee to advance this bipartisan five-year bill. the inability of the house to pass a farm bill was amongst the biggest failings of the last congress. this is by no means a perfect bill. it cuts far too deeply to the snap program. there are people in my district and in yours who depend on this program and while we must reduce the deficit, we shouldn't be doing that on the backs of those who can't afford to put food on the table. however, i believe that funding will be bolstered here on the floor of the house and in the conference. but let's look at what the bill does right.

it funds infrastructure upgrades for midwestern waterways so farmers can get their crops to market. it increases energy access in rural america, improving efficiency and reducing the input costs for farmers and small businesses. it ensures farmers have the flexibility to grow a wide array of crops without penalty and without fear of losing their insurance. it saves taxpayer dollars and concerns -- conserves critical wildlife and hunting habitat while still allowing farmers to manage their lands as they see fit. it makes the usda more efficient by streamlining programs and cutting down on unnecessary paperwork and burdensome regulation for farmers. it eases access to lines of credit so that farmers who want to expand their business have the tools necessary to do so. it strengthens crop insurance to protect taxpayers while also making sure that farmers don't lose the farm if a disaster strikes. it's time that we do what we were sent here to do.

it's time to act on a bill that although perfect -- although imperfect should have been adopted a year ago. it's time to pass a comprehensive farm bill. i stand in support of this legislation. i urge my colleagues to join with me. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: madam chairman, i yield to the gentleman from michigan one minute. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. benoit benoit thank you, madam chair -- mr. benishek: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the farm bill. over the past three years i've been talking to farmers all over northern michigan. my district is home to a diverse group of farmers. these family-owned operations are a vital and growing part of northern michigan's economy. and it has been a privilege getting to know them. earlier this month i visited with farmers in one county. i spoke to farmers on the farm.

jim and his family have been working their farm for over a century. so they know a thing or two about agriculture. their story is like that of a lot of farmers across the first district and this whole country. these farmers have been telling me about the need for a strong farm bill. i believe that's just what we have here. look, i understand that this farm bill is not an easy issue for everyone. i completely understand. i'm a doctor, not a farmer. so i tend to talk and trust to those who understand these complicated issues best. the farmers in my district. for those of who you don't have a lot of farmers, don't worry, you sure eat. i'll be happy to give you the number of lots of farmers in michigan. they'd be happy to talk to you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. benishek: i look forward to a robust debate and thank you. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. bustos, one

minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. bustos: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today to talk about an issue of critical importance to my district in illinois. and that is passing a five-year farm bill. as anyone can tell as they drive across my district, from rothford to the quad cities to peoria and everywhere in between, agriculture is our number one industry. my district is home to thousands of farmers and millions of acres of some of the best farm land in the world. it is also home to caterpillar and john deere, among the best farm implement manufacturers in the world. and the entire western border of my congressional district is met by the mississippi river on which barge transportation of agricultural products is absolutely vital to commerce in the region and the state and even the world. whenever i talk with farmers or those employed in the agricultural business, what i

hear more than anything else is that they want and they need certainty. unfortunately last year congress failed to pass a five-year farm bill and instead resorted to a short-term extension which expires at the end of september. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. lucas: i yield the gentlelady another minute -- mr. peterson: i yield the gentlelady another minute. mrs. bustos: i thank you. as a member of the agriculture committee, it was an honor to part of the farm markup last month. unlike so much else in washington, the markup was an exercise in bipartisanship. the entire committee was civil and accommodating toward one another. while the bill we passed is not perfect, it contains many worthwhile provisions. illinois farmers have endured some of the most extreme weather conditions in recent years, including record floods this year and the worst drought in a generation just a year ago. that is why we need to keep in place a strong and stable crop insurance program, so farmers always at the mercy of mother

nature can continue to provide the food our nation and our world depend on. the bill also contains an amendment that i sponsored that would help aid improvements to river transportation infrastructure, flood prevention and drought relief, including the aging locks and dams system along the mississippi and illinois rivers. the family farmers i talk with back home in illinois want the security and the stability of a five-year farm bill. that is how they can plan for future growth and investment and continue to provide the world with a stable food supply. let's give them the certainty by passing a five-year farm bill. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman for wo minutes for a colloquy.

>> as you know, the farmers many my district grow the majority of apples and pears in our country. we want to ensure we have the safest food supply in the world. however, mr. chairman, i have serious concerns with the one size fits all regulations that the food and drug administration has proposed to gon the way that all fruits and vegetables are grown and harvests. mr. hastings: i think we can agree that lettuce and apples are grown in completely different ways. for one thing, lettuce is grown on the ground, apples in trees, that makes sense. it only makes sense that they should be grown according to rules that reflect their risk and the way they are grown. i'm concerned that the current regulations would subject all growers of fresh produce to the same refrictions tissue restrictions are nearly impossible to meet for the

apple growers in my district. there has never been a known . nger to fresh apples would the gentleman agree to consider the best available science when dwhoping food safety modernization act for the safe handling of fresh fruit and venlable tabbles? yield back to the chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman's concerns and this was one of several concerns we raised in the debate in the house when the food safety modernization act was under consideration. i share his belief that if food and drug administration is going to be given the task of telling farmers how to farm, it should do so after looking at the growing methods and risks of individual commodities when

developing regulations. mr. lucas: i fear that in its zeal to achieve -- i yield myself 30 seconds. he chair: the gentleman is recognized. the food and ge drug administration to make the necessary provisions to ensure they meet this purpose. mr. haste: -- mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for his work, i look fwrd to continuing to work with him to ensure the new food safety regulations recognize the diverse way farms across the nation grow our food and keep them safe for e public. with that, i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. he gentleman from minnesota. >> i recognize the gentleman from california for one minute.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. chair gas: i thank the for his hard work. i have grave concerns about the cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, i strongly support the provisions that expand funding for the specialty crop block grants, restore funding for the specialty crop initiative and maintain funding for disease control in organic agriculture. while the farm act provides for many positive provisions that support a strong agriculture safety net, the $25.5 billion cut to snap is unconscionable. it's estimated that nearly two million low-income people will lose snap benefits and another two million live in households that would experience cuts of $90 a month.

i wanted to support a farm bill but i cannot support because of the cuts to snap but i do thank them very much for their hard work. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from california, home of an amazingly diverse agriculture, mr. lamalfa, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: i rise in support of h.r. 247. is this farm bill perfect? no. would i like it to do more? yes. is it a bill that still moves forward and modernizes? yes. aspects odified many to protect our farmers. we are reducing spending by $40 million including $6 million in

sequestration. we are repealing direct payments also. we are also saving money in the food stamps area by $20.5 billion. the farm bill offers the first reforms and savings to the snap law since the clinton era welfare reforms in 1996. modernizing snap programs while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. the house ag committee added further reforms to snap by preventing them from engaging in snap recruitment activities and prohibiting them from advertising snap on tv, radio and billboards. this is a farm bill we need to pass to move in the right direction. i urge support. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady and ask unanimous con -- consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank mr. lucas for his work. we struggle in this congress to bring bipartisan legislation to the floor. it's a shame. i've normally voted for the farm bill. first of all, the farm bill is an important piece of legislation, it sets federal policy in a range of areas that deeply affect the lives of farmers, their communities and consumers. but it also makes a huge difference in the lives of those who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger, especially children. it's a shame that we could not consider a farm bill on its merits without undermining its credibility with what we clearly believe are not reforms and not the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. it's simple to say that. i've heard that, for all the

time i've been here in congress, let's cut out fraud, waste, and abuse. everybody wants to cut out fraud, waste, and abuse. but cutting out assistance for hungry people is not fraud, waste, or abuse. well, it may be abuse. the supplemental nutrition assistance program, snap, protects over 46 million americans at risk of going without sufficient food. nearly half of those are children. are there reforms that are needed? perhaps. and the senate has made those reforms in a moderate, considered way. the average monthly benefit per participant last year according to the usda was $133.41. i challenge any member of this $133.41 for on food. $4.45 a day. four dollars and 45 cents per day. at a time when millions remain

out of work struggling to support their family, it would be irresponsible to make the kinds of cuts po posed in this bill. no one in the richest country on the face of the earth should go hungry. in this country. yet that's pactly what this bill would do. slashing $20.5 billion from the supplemental nutrition program and putting two million americans, two million of our fellow americans, at risk. feed the hungry. close the -- clothe the naked. give shelter to the homeless. that's not a political policy, that's a moral policy. our faiths teach us that. while we have cut millions in funding in this bill this congress has tone nothing to advance legislation that will help create jobs or opportunities to help expand our middle class. while it's important that congress provide certainty to

the agricultural community, which i support this unbalanced bill takes the wrong approach on these cuts to snap. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i'm disappointed. this ought to be a bipartisan bill. mr. peterson wants it to be a bipartisan bill and many of our people, the majority of our people supported it in committee. i think the chairman wants it to be a borne bill. i understand he has to deal within the framework of his caucus, like every chairman has to do. on either side of the aisle. i understand that. but it is a shame, in a bill that ought to be bringing us together, for people who provide this country with food and fiber and indeed provide a lot of the world with food and ber, that we have put this almost poison pill, i don't know if it's going to be a poison pill, but almost poison

pill in it. i regret that. it's not worthy of our country. it's not worthy of the morals of this nation. but i thank the chairman and i thank the ranking member. for their efforts to try to bring us together, whether they've done so or not, we have to see. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentlewoman from south dakota, mrs. noem, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. noem: i thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this issue. madam speaker, today i rise, i stand at this point i'd even leap for joy for a farm bill that's good for agriculture in this country. this bill we have today isn't a perfect bill but it is a good bill. it is bipartisan, it saves nearly $40 billion, it reforms the food stamp program and farm programs, it eliminates direct payments, consolidates

conservation programs, it saves money, gives us a safety net and it's still accountable to taxpayers. as we debate this bill, though, i don't want to lose sight of a big policy discussion. we decided decades ago that it was important for us to have a farm bill because it was important for taos grow our own food in this country. we didn't want to rely on another country to feed us was we recognized that the instant we did that, we would allow that country to control us. that's why good farm policy is important to our national security. that's why when we go to the grocery store, we can count on buying safe food. we can know that there will be aed forable -- affordable food there at affordable prices. a farm bill is the reason we all enjoy these benefits. we can't take our food supply for granted. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill this week and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman from the great state

of texas, mr. neugebauer, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognize for one minute. mr. neugebauer: i thank the chairman and i rise in support of h.r. 1947, the farm bill. this is a win-win. this is a win for the american people because they're going to continue to get the safest and cheapest food in the world. it's a win for farmers and ranchers all across the country because now they'll have a five-year farm bill that will give them policy to make the important decisions -- decisions they need to make to runner that businesses and farms and ranches. more importantly it's good for -- it's a win-win for the american people. this brings $40 billion worth of savings at a time when we're running trillion drar deficits. there's been a lot of discussion about what this bill does and doesn't do. this bill does bring reform, reforming over 100 different programs. with what it doesn't do is take one benefit away from a snap recipient that's qualified for that. what we find is there's been some gamesmanship in this

program. what we think we owe the american people is to make sure the people on these benefits that are very timely for some folks, but make sure they qualify for it. so those people who want to say that this takes money away or food away from families, it's just not true. i urge you to support this reform bill. it's good for the american people. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield one minute to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for one minute. mr. king: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i come to the floor, first to congratulate the bipartisan effort. been through another farm bill a couple of times and i've seen it as we had a republican chair a democrat chair a republican chair, i've seen as ranking member peterson worked hard with republicans, five, six years ago, i've seen it as our

chairman frank lucas has worked hard with ranking member peterson over the last year and a half. this is a very, very difficult balance to pull together but here's what we get this with this. first of all, the end of direct payments. by the agreement of our producers, whoever recipient of a government check stepped forward and said, i'll give that up because economically we can do that. at the same time we get some reform in the snap side of this thing that says we're going to start holding people accountable without taking a single calorie out of the mouths of those what are needy and those we want to get those benefits and in the middle of all of that, if we don't pass a bill, we revert to the 1949 bill would be a calamity. if we don't address the snap version of this, what we end up with, madam chair is a growing food stamp program. i urge its adoption and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield the yield -- i yield the gentleman from

montana, mr. dayne, one minute. -- mr. daines one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. daines: it's past time for passage of a five-year farm bill that protects and promotes montana's number one industry. we need a farm bill that supports our rural communities and gives the ag community the certainty needed to plant the crops to feed our country and ensure stable food supply. we need a farm bill that ive goes montana farmers relief -- that gives montana farmers relief from burdensome regulations and encourages young people to remain active on their family farms. this also contains important provisions for our timber community and the health of our forests and as we begin fire season we've seen the terrible consequences of the lack of forest management. it's important we give the forest service the necessary regulatory relief in order to protect our communities. in light of our nation's escalating debt crisis, congress must look to save taxpayer money wherever possible. i am pleased that the ag committee has made substantive,

cost-saving changes to a wide variety of programs in the proposed farm bill, including reform designed to reduce fraud and abuse in the distribution of food stamps. it's important to get the farm bill passed and on the president's desk. it's time to pass the farm bill. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from minnesota continues to reserve. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i yield the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to support this bill and i certainly appreciate the persistent hard work and the leadership of chairman lucas and ranking member peterson and i want to thank both for bringing this very important legislation to the floor for a house vote. in 2012 louisiana farmers and ranchers produced nearly 11 -- $11.4 billion in commodities. it's vital in the growing sector of our state's economy and we need a new farm bill now to provide the kind of certainty going forward for our farmers.

throughout south louisiana the agricultural economy is the lifeblood of our rural communities. this is a bipartisan bill, containing truly significant reforms with savings of up to $40 billion. given the immense diversity of american agriculture, it's important to have price loss coverage which is an important option for our southern farmers, like our rice farmers. this is critical for their future security. additionally, an extension of the u.s. sugar program ensures a level playing field with other nations who continue to heavily, heavily subsidize their sugar industry one fair trade practices. i urge my colleagues to strongly support this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma continues to be recognized. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman.

i rise today in support of h.r. 1947, the 2013 farm bill. agriculture is an inherently risky venture but even in tough times agriculture remains a bright spot in our economy and we cannot afford to undermine this success. we should not use the notion of ag producers growing more and wasting less as an excuse to chip away at crop insurance. thanks to crop insurance design, last year's logses, a result of the worst drought -- losses, a result of the worst drought in decades, were not pleatly borne by taxpayers. more cuts to mean increased costs to consumers. this also provides disaster assistance to livestock producers impacted by severe drought, continues investment into agriculture research, a crucial component of food safety, and builds upon conservation efforts already undertaken by landowners across america. while this is not a perfect bill, madam speaker, we are here to allow the legislative process to work. i'm hopeful we can pass this bill, go to conference with the senate and ensure producers have the opportunity they need to continue to feed the world. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma has one minute remaining. and the gentleman from minnesota has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lucas: i would note that i am the last speaker and would conclude and might even take a moment or two if the gentleman would yield me an extra minute or two. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'll yield back the balance of my time and -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman wish to give -- the gentleman from minnesota yields 5 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i recognize myself for whatever time i might consume. the chair: without objection. mr. lucas: madam speaker, week of heard some very good debate this evening about the merits and the challenges that we faced in putting this bipartisan bill together. i'd like to take just a moment to focus on the nutrition title

and the spirit and the logic that went into crafting this. the focus of the committee was that the savings should be achieved across all areas of the farm bill and that $40 billion, approximately, we have saved does achieve savings in the commodity title, the conservation title, as well as the nutrition title. everybody under the jurisdiction of the farm bill contributes to the reforms. now, in the nutrition title, for just a moment, i just want to stress to my colleagues, the committee tried to achieve savings in a way that would not deny an individual who was qualified under present law by income or assets from receiving help. we just simply say in the committee draft that things like automatic food stamps, categorical eligibility, something that's evolved out of the 1996 welfare reform, we just simply say, everyone needs

to show they qualify. and we'll help you. the liheap program, where states in some cases give as little as $1 to help their citizens pay their home heating costs, that triggers a full month's worth of food stamps, we say in the bill, states, you got to give $20 to trigger that . the goal of the committee was never to work hardship on anyone. the goal of the committee, in a time of $16 trillion national debt, annual trillion-dollar deficits, was to achieve saves across the board -- savings across the board. but it requires that the folks who need help come in and demonstrate they qualify. if you don't like the asset level or the income level, that's a different debate. we just simply say, if you need the help, show us you qualify and we'll help you. that's a $20.5 billion savings, according to c.b.o. will that be the way it's implemented? i don't know. but we operate by c.b.o.

scores. and almost $40 billion in overall savings, in all areas of the farm bill. i would challenge all my friends, if every other committee in every other jurisdiction would achieve these kinds of savings across the board, we'd be in a different situation with our operating annual deficit. the ag committee's done its work. and we've done it in a thoughtful way. help us over the course of the next few days with this amendment process. on't, don't buy affection or offer amendments to simply prevent the process from happening. don't do things that are sbenleded not to make the bill a better piece of legislation, but to prevent it. be good legislators, be thoughtful legislators, do what's right. whether it's to help the people raise the food or that other part of our society that needs help on a month-to-month basis. do them all right.

i have faith new. i believe through good debate -- faith in you. i believe through good debate on good amendments, perfection will be made, a consensus will be achieved, we'll move forward. i have faith in you, my colleagues. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 19 27, reports me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1947 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, h.r. 1947. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 266, i call up h.r. 1797 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 77, h.r. 1797, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the district of columbia and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 266, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-15 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the

gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1797, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, be permitted to control the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, i reserve the right to object because i'm wondering why a member of the judiciary committee is not managing on the part of the majority. the chairman is here, we recessed our markup so that all members of the judiciary committee could be present. it is generally our practice for members of the committee of

jurisdiction to manage on both sides and so the inquiry is why are we departing from that ractice? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve? ms. lofgren: i do reserve. mr. goodlatte: it's the prerogative of the committee to choose the appropriate people to manage time. i notice that the ranking member is not managing on the democratic side. we choose to ask someone who is not a member of the committee and that's appropriate under the rules of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i will not object. i just thought it was an unusual procedure. but i will withdraw my reservation and we may proceed. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady withdraw her reservation? ms. lofgren: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you,

madam speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you. i have to tell you, madam speaker, so often we come to the floor and we will hear members say, we're doing this for the children or that for the children and i have to tell you, this is one of those days that we truly can stand and say, yes indeed, we are taking an action that will enable so many children to enjoy that first guarantee, that guarantee to life. and indeed that is the reason that we stand here. the unborn child protection act is based in science. this is an area that has overwhelming public support and it is indyed deed an appropriate -- it is indeed an appropriate response to kermit gosnell's house of horrors and the similar stories that we are

hearing emanate from across the nation about what is happening in these abortion clinics. what this does is to limit abortion at the sixth month of pregnancy and includes exceptions so that we can send the clearest possible message to the american people that we do not support more gosnell-like abortions. it does nothing to ban abortion before the sixth month of pregnancy. affect roe vs. wade and we know it's a step that needs to be taken to protect life. you know, scientific evidence tells us that unborn babies can feel touch as soon as eight weeks into the pregnancy. they feel pain at 20 weeks. indeed, some of these marvelous, marvelous fetal

surgeries that are performed, they administer an he is thesia -- anesthesia to these unborn babies and as i said, public opinion polling shows that 60% of all americans, madam speaker, they support limiting abortion during the second trimester and 80% during the third trimester. we think it is indumb kent -- incumbent on this body to take the steps we bring before the body, to recognize science and bring the law in line with the majority of public opinion and o stand against what has transpyred -- sprans pyred in kermit ranspired in the gosnell abortion clinic.

even the attorney for gosnell said he thought it should be at 16 or 17 weeks, that it would be a far better thing to have the ban at 16 or 17 weeks. we are not pushing back that far, we are at 20 week, we think this is an appropriate, appropriate step. at this time, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i i rise in opposition to this bill. this is the 10th vote we have to restrict access to women's health care since republicans took the house in 2011 and more plenty of other things we should be doing. it imposes a 20-week abortion ban, it's unconstitutional and also dangerous to the he will of women. the narrow health exception allows only for abortions to

save the life of pregnant women it's shortsighted at best and cruel at worst. can go ngs would -- wrong in pregnancy and would doctors to wait until a woman's life was in danger. severe conditions may arise for the fetus laettner pregnancy and this would require some women to carry a fetus to term 9/11 a situation where that fetus has been diagnosed with a lethal medical condition that heartbreaking scenario. the rape and incest exceptions are ensulting and narrow. they were added after the committee's markup and are incredibly disappointing. they require reporting the crime to law enforcement prior to seeking care, which shows a discrust of -- distrust of women and a lack of

understanding of the retail of sexual assaults. only 35% of women report sexual assaults and there are many reasons for that that are complex, including fear of prere-prizal, 78% of rape victims know their offender, shame, wanting to put the incident behind them, also this bill is unconstitutional. it's a direct challenge to roe v. wade, where the court held that prior to viability, abortions may be banned only if there are meaningful exceptions to protect a woman's life and health. for over four decades suppose principles have been upheld and this bill blatantly disregards them. finally, i want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. it's an attack on women's health, on our constitutional freedoms, it seeks to take important medical decisions out of the hands of women, their doctors, and their families, and instead entrusts those decisions to congress. it's a misguided effort.

i oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the squealt from california reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield three minutes to one of our great pro life advocates, mrs. black from tennessee. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: madam speaker, when i first became a nurse over 40 years ago, i took a vow to devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care. and it is with this spirit of both protecting life and women's health that i'm proud to rise today in support of h.r. 1797, the pain capable unborn child protection act. now this bipartisan legislation would ban late term abortions after 20 weeks. i want to say that again. it would ban late term abortions after 20 weeks. with the exception provided for

when the life of the mother is in danger. .r. 1797 is based on undisputed scientific evidence which tells us that unborn children at 20 weeks and older can feel pain. these are babies, they can feel pain. and that late term abortions pose severe health risks also for the mother. for example, a woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester. there are medical reasons for this. at 21 weeks or more, a woman is 91 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in the first trimester. despite these undisputed facts about the baby's level of development and a woman's health, there's currently no federal law to protect

pain-capable unborn children or their mothers by restricting late-term abortions. even at a day and age when we're seeing premature babies born at 2 weeks that survive. and as society, we celebrate the birth of babies whether it's prematurely at 22 weeks or delivered at full term and we hope and pray for the good health of that baby and the mother. today with that same spirit in mind, i urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating and protecting life of both the baby and the mother by passing h r. 1797. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield two minutes to a former member of the judiciary committee, congresswoman wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for wo

two -- for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to strongly oppose the pain-capable unborn child protection act. it has been 40 years since roe v. wade yet women still have to fight for the right to keep decisions about our bodies between us and our doctors. we shouldn't have to worry that our government will try to intercede in our personal health care decisions. this bill is extreme and it's an unprecedented reach into women's personal lives. this is a clear indication that the well being of women in this country is not something republicans care to protect. it is clear that the members who approve this bill, the all-male republican members on the house judiciary committee are not only disinterested in protecting the well being of women but also in the professional opinion of the medical community. we have heard a lot of offensive and down right untrue assertions by republicans throughout the discussion of this bill, include big the previous speaker. these are assertions that are baseless, completely devoid of

medical facts or grounding in consensus among doctors. no evidence has been presented, they just throw statistics out without any citation or reference at all. just because you say it out loud in the house chamber doesn't make it true. the republican men who brought this bill to the floor despite the parade of our women colleagues on the house floor today, do not represent the voices of women in america. every time we let their voices get louder than hours, we are inching back to the truly dark ages, where a world of barriers from physical, to legal, to financial stood between women and their constitutional rights. we have worked too hard and be too far to let it destroyed now. when i think about the world i in, my daughters to live should have safe, legal alternatives.

i urge a no vote on this extreme unconstitutional piece of legislation into the personal health and well being of women and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserved. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: "usa today" gallup poll 64% of abortions should not be permitted in the second three months of pregnancy, 0% in the third three months this epolling company, march 3, 2013, 63% of women believe abortion shouldn't be permitted after the point where medical evidence shows the baby can feel pain. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. bachmann: it's a privilege to stand here today and speak on behalf of the unborn. i have a picture that was taken just yesterday, all of us as parents love to take pictures of our babies thsms a picture

taken of an unborn by by yesterday. this is the age of a baby, the youngest age at 20 weeks, that this bill is referencing. and this is the picture of the mom. we're here because we care about women, we're here because we care about the unborn. that's why i support this wonderful bill that's before our body today. you see we had a very recent disturbing account of late-term abortionist, his name is kermit gosnell. his actions have made debates like this more important than ever before. under the guise of being a medical professional, he violently ended the life of viable unborn babies and in turn he seriously hurt or even killed some of the women who he claimed were his patients. a few days ago, the minority leader, nancy pelosi referred to late term abortions as sacred ground when voicing opposition to this bill. i found that to be a stunning

statement. what could possibly be sacred about late term abortion? what could possibly be sacred about dismembering this 6-month-old little baby with a pair of scissors as kermit gosnell did? what could be sacred about listening to the whimpers and cries of a baby because we know that babies at this age feel pain when a scissor is put into their body as it comes to an end. we are the people who make the laws in our society and therefore with we have the duty to protect the inalienable right to life of every individual, both the mom and the unborn baby, and eight weeks from conception, an unborn child's heart begins to beat. by 20 weeks, he or she is capable of sensing pain. and babies as young as 21 weeks have survived premature birth. madam speaker, as a woman and as a mom of five natural born children and 23 foster children, i am appalled by the

savage practice of late-term abortion there is no such thing as an unwanted child and that's why this legislation is so important. it not only protects the unborn, it protects the mom against the lethal practices of people like gosnell. unborn children deserve their inalienable right to life. pregnancy is wonderful. it can be difficult too. that's why we need to show patience and compassion toward every woman who carries a human life. we are treading on sacred ground but it's because we're deal twheg sanctity of every human life and out of respect for this mom and out of respect for this unborn child i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense piece of legislation. i thank mrs. blackburn, i thank representative trent franks of arizona and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee

reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: may i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 25 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from tennessee has 21 1/4 minutes. ms. lofgren: before yielding to the ranking member, i'd like to know the situation of my friend, vicky wilson who found ut unfortunately in the 20th week of her pregnancy that her much-wanted and desired child had all of her brains formed outside of the cranium and would not survive and if she carried the fetus to term, likely her uterus would have ruptured. under this bill, vicky would have been forced into that heartbreaking situation. i think that's simply wrong. i yield now three minutes to the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr.

conyers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, ms. lofgren. i appreciate this important debate and participating in it. members of the house, by imposing a nationwide ban on abortions performed after 20 eeks, h.r. 1797, the so-called pain-capable unborn child protection act, is nothing less than a direct attack on a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about her health. it criminalizes previability abortions with only a narrow exception for the woman's life. it fails to include any exceptions for the woman's health, and it utterly disregards the