appreciate it. guest: thank you. is about to come into session but i want to remind you cameras are outside today getting rt reaction to what the court will two e any minute about marriage.n same-sex you can go to c-span 3 and your tweets.d now to the house. 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable reed j. ribble to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning, mr. speaker, i rise today to acknowledge the memory and the life of pearl s. buck, an author, humanitarian and political activist who made her home in hilltown, bucks county, on greens hill farm where she wrote 100 books. during this week, the anniversary of her 121st birthday, we know that pearl buck is the first american woman to receive the nobel prize for literature. of also advocated on behalf women's rights and minority groups while caring for asian

and mixed race children are legendary. pearl buck will be remembered for humanitarian achievements as well as for her righting and we acknowledge the renovation recently of her 19th century house in bucks county. it will be sustained for new generations to learn and emulate pearl buck's love for the struggling, the misunderstood and the children. we honor her life and we treasure her memory. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, after 23 nhl playoff games, 10 overtimes and 64 goals the chicago blackhawks have won their second stanley cup in the last four years. congratulations to the greatest team in hockey on being the 2013 stanley cup champions. the impressive regular season

began with a record breaking streak of 24 straight games with a point earned and it ended with the president's trophy for the most points in a regular season. this success set the stage for an outstanding playoff run, a promise of things to come. the hawks made good on that promise this week in one of the most incredible and improbable stanley cup final games in nhl history. having already tamed the minnesota wild, taking down our arch rifle, the detroit red wings, and dethrowned los angeles kings, the blackhawks grinded through the finals to one of the craziest and most exciting stanley cup wins ever witnessed. to say this championship winning game was a nail biter would be an understatement. the blackhawks came from behind twice to overcome an amazing effort by the boston bruins scoring two goals just 17 seconds apart in the final minute and a half of the game. unbelievable goals scored by brian and dave ensured their names will be inscribed forever

in blalk history -- blackhawk history books as well as on the lord stanley cup. patrick kane, the best defenseman in hockey, keith, of course the best goals in the playoffs, corey crawford, the entire team made good on a promise that this original 16 is the true legend to be reckoned with. as i had mentioned before, hockey never left chicago, but the owner of the blackhawks has once again made our city proud. the entire organization is the model t in sports, the in hockey. they have enshrined quhig as a hockey town for the 21st century. but the blackhawks don't just unify our city. they also are committed to serving the community and making it better.

their street hawks program has promoted fitness and leadership skills through street hockey initiatives and community skating facilities. through the nhl's hockey is for everyone program, i had a pleasure of working with the awks to expand hockey to at-risk and lgbt youth. every child should have the opportunity to play the greatest sport in the world. the blackhawks have also been strong supporters of america's veterans and wounded warriors. just this year i joined the hawks and the u.s. warriors veterans team for an outdoor hockey game at soldier field. the hawks gave these vets, most of whom are purple heart recipients, a once in a lifetime experience they will never forget and i suppose this is what the hawks do best, provide their fans, fans in chicago and around the world, with memories they will never forget. i look forward to new memories yet to be made during future stanley cup victories.

games with blackhawk players who are kids right now with memories of shots in the hockey world ringing through their heads. mr. speaker, hockey is a special sport that brings people together, improves our communities and most importantly makes people dream the impossible and do the improbable. the entire world saw this this week, the 2013 stanley cup champion chicago blackhawks. thank you, mr. speaker. go, hawks, and i yield back, d as always, my kind of town chicago is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, for five minutes. roger federer -- mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, america's coal families are under attack, not from a foreign power or a natural disaster but by an administration that has

resolutely, perversely and now overtly proposed to end coal mining and coal-fired power generation in these united states. president obama's calamitous climate change plan announced yesterday is the latest job-killing bomb to be dropped on kentucky, west virginia, illinois, dozens of other coal states already knocked down after four years of administration policies. this administration has used cold words like streamlining and permit reviews. to shell our communities with regulations and red tape that even the most sophisticated businesses can't adhere to. now, the white house is dismantling our strategic energy advantage and unilaterally disarming our economy in broad daylight.

i quote white house climate advisor daniel straight out of the white house, quote, a war on coal is exactly what's needed, end of quote. mr. speaker, a war on goal is exactly what is not needed. a war on coal is a war on middle-class americans. it's a war on jobs, all kinds of jobs. 's already claimed 5,700 direct kentucky jobs in just a year and a half. the vast majority of those in my economically challenged district. there's no recovery in inez or high-tech bomb, mr. speaker. my families are struggling to get back to work, pay their bills or find salaries comparable to coal mining, and my communities are losing their main employers. this climate plan makes the situation worse, dimming the

prospects of reopening the mines even further. moreover, this disastrous climate change plan is a plan for america's economic and security decline. this plan will only lead to higher electric bills and increase dependence on foreign enemy sources. and to think someone has the audacity to say we need a war on coal, well, what we need is a war on that line of thinking. this administration's stringent rules and absurd mandates are simply meant to force coal-fired power plants to stop burning coal or shutter their facilities altogether. i call it strangulation by regulation. mr. speaker, more than 200 coal plants have already closed across 25 states, and now seven new e.p.a. regulations are on track to do even more damage.

i'm losing one of the biggest employers in laurence county to this onslaught, 1200 good-paying jobs. in -- 1,200 good-paying jobs. mines, , the closing of resulting hikes in electric rates is expected to come the u.s. economy some 870,000 jobs per year. please tell me how this is in our national interest, how this is leading america forward. in 2008 the president promised to bankrupt the coal fields and yesterday he took a giant step toward that reckless, shameful goal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. israel, for five minutes. mr. israel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. israel: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in five days the student loan interest rate will double. it will go from 3.4% to 6.8%. that is a $4,500 increase for many college students. at a time when they're struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay their tuition, to pay their housing expenses, to prepare to join the work force and build careers, at a time when they're struggling to pay their debts, we're going to increase their debt. i want to commend to my colleagues a report from the joint economic committee staff that just came out that talks about how student loan debt has skyrocketed over the past several years. here's how the study concludes. i'm quoting. the increasing debt burden presents challenges for recent graduates just beginning their careers and poses a potential risk to the economy since individuals who shoulder heavier debt balances may delay purchasing a home, buying a car, starting a family and saving for retirement.

on average recent graduates left college with student loan debt of 60% of their annual income. mr. speaker, 60% of nair annual income -- their income will be spent paying back debt from college, and if we don't compromise, it's going to be even more than that. i've always believed and i know many of my colleagues have always build you build an economy by building the middle class and you expand the middle class by making sure that middle-class families can afford college, that college is accessible. i don't understand an economic strategy that says you make it harder and more expensive for the middle class to go to college, nor do i understand an argument that we cannot afford to keep the interest rate low but we can spend $40 billion subsidizing the five richest oil companies in america who do not need those subsidies. the middle class deserve those subsidies.

middle-class students trying to get into college to begin careers deserve subsidies. but to say that they cannot have those subsidies, that we're going to double the interest rate on them while preserving a $40 billion subsidy to the richest oil companies on earth is not only bad policy, it's ruinous economic strategy. mr. speaker, i do not why anybody in this body would want to make it harder and more difficult for students to go to college at a time when we're competing with china and south korea and other countries around the world to continue our strength and power over the next several decades. it is essential that we find a compromise, mr. speaker. there's a thrirs by americans for compromise -- thirst by americans for compromise. i for one and members of the house democratic caucus are able, willing and able to compromise over the next five days. we just need somebody to

compromise with. we need a compromise that is fair to the middle class, puts middle-class families first, puts college students first, puts college affordability first and puts partisan politics aside. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, for five minutes. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, a great deal has been said about the border surge over in the senate, and in typical senate think, they've seen a problem and decided to throw money at the problem even if a lack of funding is not the problem in which they are facing.

this map divides the country up into the border patrol sectors. the numbers are from 1920, -- 2010. the numbers are different today but obviously the ratios are about the same. in this year one has to ask the question of why 56 illegal entries apprehended in the main sector and a quarter of a million, 200,000 apprehended in the arizona sector, what was the difference between those two? look, if you were trying to sneak into a baseball game, something i'm not advocating, you don't jump over a turnstile where no cop is standing. the drug cartels are not stupid. they are looking for that hole in the fence. and obviously in this sector is where the majority of the illegals and illegal drugs and the illegal human trafficking and potential terrorism exists. so the question has to be, why is that the entrance level of choice? .

it's very simple. this map, everything that is red is land that's owned by the ederal governmentment in arizona 80% of the border is owned by the federal government. over half of that is in wilderness category, endangered speeshquiss, or habitat category. by special law the legislation provides this land a special status which prohibits the border patrol from entering that area. they can't enter in a motorized vehicle, a bicycle. they can go into that area by foot or specially fed horses. the cartel recognizes this. they are not stupid. they realize this is the problem. when this congress insists that a fence be built along the california border, we passed legislation weighed 40 environmental laws that were prohibiting the fence from being built. those same 40 laws are the laws that prohibit the border patrol from going along the red areas of that border and doing their

job, which simply means, as ironic as it sounds, federal law is stopping the federal border patrol from going on federal land to do a federal purpose, which is federally stupid. that is what we are doing. the border patrol is actually the ones that care about the environment. drug cartels don't at all. this is an endangered species and it was cut down there to stop east-west access on the only road that has allowed the border patrol to follow in that area. is a temporary sensor device in a wilderness area. the border patrol wanted to move it from point a to point b, it

took them six months to get approval by the land manager in that area before they could back the truck up because the land manager was not happy with the border patrol being in his wilderness territory, and the law was on the side of the land manager not on the side of the border pa -- patrol. the senate has tried to say that they are coming up with a compromised solution to increase border security. in actuality they have done just the opposite. they have put language in there that says homeland security sector can notwithstanding any law, require certainle elements be built in this particular area. that allows the secretary of the homeland security to have the political discretion on whether to do it or not. it allows the secretary of homeland security to have immediate access into these border areas, but only in arizona. if they go anywhere else along

this border, they have to have written approval of the secretary of the interior as well as the secretary of agriculture. and most importantly, it says in there that the manner in which the homeland secretary shall make these decisions must be in a manner that best protects the natural and cultural resources on federal land. as soon as they have put that language in there it requires some bureaucrat to establish what the standard is and it opens it up to someone else having litigation that that is not the best standard possible. in essence, we are back in a worse situation. they wish to have another 20,000 border patrol agents. this is what our fence looks like in arizona today. simply this is the fence, this is mexico, that's arizona, and the open area is the animal habitat to allow animals to go back and forth from mexico and arizona. the one road on here is the only road in which the border patrol is allowed to go. you can have another 20,000 --

you could have another 100 thousand agents on that area and you'll find out it still won't help unless you let them go outside of that one road. we don't need more money, we need access. what the senate is proposing is worse than the status quo. with that i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, the impacts of climate change can no longer be denied. superstorm hurricanes, massive tornadoes, record breaking droughts, heat spells, accelerating melting of glaciers, and increasing ocean salinity. due to the effects of climate change, many highly populated communities at low elevations face increasing pressure from storms and rising waters, potentially driving massive migrations to higher ground. if we continue on this path, extensive and severe droughts will hurt food production and

fresh water supplies in the united states. similar occurrences around the world will certainly be destabilizing and potentially draw the united states into dangerous conflicts. most climate chains -- change are predicting these and other effects. however the reality is most computer models are being outpaced as the carbon buildup and energy trapped in the atmosphere accelerates. despite these developments, there is an increasing partisan vibe on the issue of climate change. many of my republican colleagues are either in complete denial that global warming is happening, don't believe human activity is causing the problem, or think it would be too expensive to take the necessary steps to mitigate and adapt to global warming. this gross bipartisan -- this gross partisan behavior and denial of science is becoming a clear and present threat to our

national security and well-being. would we sit by if a foreign power built up a threatening military force on one of our borders? of course not. yet climate change presents a threat that's just as dangerous. what will it take for this nation to greatly reduce carbon we are adding to the atmosphere and begin the process of preparing for the changes that are coming? will it take a global weather catastrophe? will it take several more hurricane sandies? how many years of drought will the midwest be forced to endure? with global warming, the signs of change are overwhelming t we cannot wait for a global catastrophe that will impose massive suffering, enough to overcome our civil institutions. our national security depends on us taking action now. the good news is that if we do take action now, the cost is affordable and the benefits are

significant. even if climate change were not a threat, reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will make the environment cleaner and energy costs less volatile, increase energy efficiency will greatly reduce family utility bills, while making our homes more comfortable. using renewable energy creates stable jobs. on the other hand, if we wait until a global or regional climate catastrophe forces desperate action, the consequences will be expensive and possibly deadly. those who reject science and denies human cause to climate change are fosterering a dangerous threat to our nation's future and to future generations of all americans. i hope that those who deny the effects of climate change see the danger that they are subjecting our nation to or that the voters elect representatives

who will take responsible actions necessary to address the imminent threat of climate change. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. the west fork complex, acreage burning. more than 141 square miles and counting. the east peak fire, over 13,000 acres and counting. these are just two of the fires that are burning my district and it is still early summer. tens of thousands of acres of forests have already gone. and entire communities are being threatened. brave men and women are working around the clock to stop this devastation. they are incredible. i want to thank all of them for all they are doing to protect property, save lives, and be

able to contain these wildfires. just like the wildfires that have ravaged our state over the past decade, these fires have destroyed property and are doing irreversible damage to the environment, to the fragile ecologies and watersheds on which we rely. the incident commanders in charge of the suppression efforts on the west fork fire, the nation's highest priority, told me this week the behavior of the fire is unprecedented. because of all of the beetle killed timber, our naturally dense forests and dry conditions, the fire has acted in way that defies computer models and been incredibly devastating. the most tragic art of -- part of all of this is the occurrence of thee forest fires could be reduced if not prevented with commonsense healthy forest management. with this in mind, i have put forward the following resolution. expressing the house of representatives that allocating the appropriate resources to wildland fire management is needed to protect the environment, the economy, the people of the united states, and

for other purposes. whereas the thoughts and prayers of the members of the house of representatives go out to the individuals and families who have lost loved ones in their homes to wildfire, whereas the members of the house of representatives express the utmost gratitude to wildland firefighters, first responders who bravely protect life and for the whereas nearly 10 million acres of land burned in the united states in 2012. whereas the anchorage burned by wildfires has steadily increased over the past decade whereas the most destructive fire in the state of history -- in the history of colorado destroyed hundreds of homes and hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in 2012 whereas the federal management of our forests and land management officials continue to request fewer funds to fight wildfires, whereas funding available for the suppression in the wildlife fire management account of the forest service was cut by $461

million from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, whereas the wildland fire hazardous fuels reduction account of the forest service was cut by $22 million from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, and the latest budget requests asks for another $116 million decrease, whereas the collaborative forest restoration program, a program that benefits local economies, improves the overall health of the landscape has taken a 20% cut in funding over the past two years, whereas senior forest service officials have described the federal land management system hamstrung by analysis of paralysis, whereas decades of federal mismanagement have increased fuel loads on federal forestland and led to increased risk of catastrophic wildfire, whereas the u.s. forest service has replaced responsible, environmentally sound timber thinning with allowing forests to burn for overcrowded forests,

whereas the bark beetle epidemic has destroyed 40 million acres of forests in america and the bark beetle infected trees can still be salvaged for timber to be used for mills and distribute to small businesses and local economies, now it will be be it resolved it is the sense of the house of representatives that allocating appropriate resources to wildland fire management is needed to protect the environment, the economy, and the people of the united states. the bravery of the men and women who risk their lives to extinguish these conflagerations can never be questioned. a healthy forest policy must include prodescribed thinning. funding to fight and prevent wildfires is essential to public safety, environmental protection, and economic growth. people who live in or near or national forests have the right to expect the greatest possible protection for their homes and properties. the government should not continue to acquire more land when it mismanages the hundreds of millions of acres already controlled by the government or

mismanaged, and the forest service should proactively manage federal forestlands in a manner that protects life and property, prevents catastrophic wildfire, promotes forests and watershed health, and creates jobs and economic development in the forest products industry. i invite all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me standing with the people of colorado. standing with all in the west. who have been impacted by the catastrophic wildfire and firefighters risking their lives to protect others. join me in the action to prevent future devastation and restore our forest to health. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. minutes ago a 5-4 decision written by justice kennedy ruled

that doma is a violation of the equal protection clause. today's decision is a monumental step forward in the long march towards glbt equality. 40 years ago i chaired a committee hearing in the oregon legislature on discrimination based on sexual orientation, it was an eye opening experience to me, it was the first time someone ever acknowledged to me their sexual orientation, let alone the discrimination they faced living a life of repression and fear. . in the course of those 40 years it's been important to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. we've watched a political movement emerge from the ashes of defeat of the discriminatory ballot measures across the country. it's exciting to see how this movement has been led at first by the people in the lgbt community who refuse to accept

defeat, who despite personal sacrifice has stepped forward to declare who they are, who they love, what they want and why they want it. it's been encouraging to watch business leaders step forward, no longer just the more progressive elements of the business community. lately it's become mainstream to acknowledge that diversity in the work force demands a nondiscrimination policy that regardless of a person's sexual orientation and to whom they choose to commit, it makes no difference in the eyes of a thoughtful successful employer. it's exciting for me to watch and participate in this year's pride parade in portland. to note the leadership of virtually every institution in our community, businesses like nike and standard insurance, northwest natural, grocery stores, colleges and universities, churches all marching proudly in a show of solidarity a rejection of discrimination, support for diversity in the work force

place for friends, neighbors, relatives. today's supreme court decision marks the most significant milestone yet in this struggle. by striking down doma, the supreme court has cast aside a major barrier to our glbt friends and neighbors and relatives to be able to live complete lives. to be able to avoid discrimination, the stigma, the economic disadvantage. it's a signal this will be the final chapter in a -- for a society that recognizes the worth of all human beings, acknowledges the right of all human beings to live as they wish, love who they will and be able to enjoy the multiple benefits that come from being involved with committed relationships and legal marriages. it's not just a milestone for our brothers and sisters in the glbt community. it's a significant benefit for all society. if one truly believes that marriage is one of the cornerstones that we encourage

for committed relationships, for people to be able to raise their families, look after one another in a stable, committed relationship, you know, why shouldn't they be able to marry? why should the federal government refuse to recognize that and discriminate? some of the most traditional elements of our society who are dragging their feet should be in the forefront helping lead this charge. now, we must be vigilant. there are still pockets of resistance, hostility, bigotry, humiliation. there are state laws that need to be adjust, but it will no longer be sanctioned by federal policy. and that is a critical difference. once it is no longer to discriminate, we are truly in the homestretch for the type of society we want. this critical step was a narrow 5-4 decision, but it was a victory nonetheless. the path forward is a little more clear and it's going to be a little easier. before we start this next chapter, it's fitting we

celebrate this moment, the accomplishment of what it represents and what it will mean for america. that temple of justice that is the supreme court looks a little different this morning, and i hope americans will appreciate it and think about where we go from here. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> recognize same-sex marriages. justice anthony kennedy wrote the majority opinion for that saying, under doma same-sex

marriage couples have their lives burdened by reason of government decree invisible and public ways, kennedy says. doma's principal effect is to identify subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal, he said. in the second case, that's the case involving proposition eight in california, the court has just handed down that decision, and essentially said the petegs in the case had no standing. so they remand it back. we are going to go now to c-span3 and simultaneous -- simulcast our reaction to these ecisions here on c-span. >> i am opposed to same-sex marriage, but i'm opposed to a lot of other things, too, but my reason for that because the aids epidemic never came around until it really got going good and the

homosexuals had to deal with that worse than other people. and i believe that what the bible says, one man, one woman. if we had that instead of while this wife swapping -- of all this wife swapping and parties where you are screwing everything you can screw, there would be wouldn't be this disease stuff that's going on, you know. it would clean up a lot of that. i believe that god is coming back soon. i believe he's going to judge this country according to what we do. i'm not judging other people, but i'm allowed to inspect their fruit. i see somebody kissing a man or -- >> we are going to let you go there, gregory. we have some reaction from the ourt, thank you.

>> amicus cure yea in both cases regarding same-sex marriage. i have just come from the courtroom where the opinions have been filed in both cases. i will make statements on behalf of the evangelical church alliance, which represents thousands of evangelical clergy from around the country, as well as 350 military chaplains. you have already heard, the court has struck down the defense of marriage act as unconstitutional. standing on the part of the advocates of proposition 8 in california. i'll be addressing both of those outcomes on behalf of the

evangelical church alliance. churches like ours, as well as traditional christians who advocate for marriage as between a man and a woman. no matter how any of us feel about the outcomes in these cases, one thing is true. the supreme court has no authority when it comes to the nature of marriage. that authority belongs to the creator whom our founders declared is the source of all our rights. the public conversation over marriage continues and that is a good thing. when it comes to the defense of marriage act, there are a myriad of perspectives among evangelicals and other

christians of traditional faith, but some believe it is best to get the federal government out of its many areas as possible, including marriage. so there are those of us who are disappointed with the court's action on doma, while others has eah, another tooth been extracted from the federal monster. on proposition 8, the question of whether the people will get to decide for themselves how marriage will be practiced in their states appears to await another day. and that's a good question to pursue. we are disappointed in the short-term results and the

short-term questions that remain unsettled, but the public conversation continues and that's a good thing. one thing true about today's court's decision on marriage, they do not change the biblical or timeless truth of the nature of marriage as between a man and a woman. but just as importantly for christians of traditional faith like evangelicals for whom i spoke -- speak, today's decisions are an invitation to look at the reality of same-next couples and families differently. -- same sex sums and families differently. through the lens of god's love to administer mercy to all people. the gospel is open to all

regardless of their sexual orientation or the configuration of their family. this is a challenge that our folks need to meet and in prayer and with god's wisdom i know we'll meet it. i'll be making extended remarks and leading a brief prayer service from the podium just to my right following the other comments at these microphones. thank you. >> father paul shank, catholics united for life. i concur with my brother's statements. > reverend rob shank, schenck, chairman, evangelical church alliance. >> my name is jennifer kerns, i was the official spokesperson

for prop 8 in california. i am here today on behalf of the seven million voters in the state of california who voted for proposition 8. i am here today because the state of california has a system of direct democracy more than seven million voters voted for proposition eight in 2008. and more than 10 million voters in the mid 1990's for proposition 22. while i have been quiet for the last five years for this proposition to take its course in our legal system, i'm here today on behalf of the seven million voters in the state of california to express our disappointment. we believe every vote should count. thank you. >> again, my name is jennifer

kerns, and i was the spokesperson for prop 8. i'll be over here if you need any additional comments. >> congressman tim huelskamp from the state of kansas. issue some comments about this issue. in the decision today the supreme court has offered two very contradictory rulings. on one hand they claim to make a decision the states have a right to decide the definition of marriage. the second decision they said the states' voters do not have the right to decision. and the dissent on the first decision was very clear. this court has taken upon itself the attempt, radical attempt to redefine marriage. i think what gets lost in this judicial attempt to short circuit the democratic process is the needs of our children. with this decision the courts have allowed the desires of adults to trump the needs of children. every child deserves a mommy and a daddy.

and with this decision they undercut the needs of our hildren. >> u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a. thank you thank you. thank you. thank you.

u.s.a., u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a. u.s.a.

>> good morning. i'm adam, the executive director of the american foundation for equal rights. it's been my great privilege to be here this morning with the plaintiff's legal team and founding board members of the american foundation for equal rights. speaking first will be david boys. -- boyce. >> this is a great day for america. 10 years ago today the united states supreme court in lawrence vs. texas, took the first important step to guaranteeing that all americans, regardless of sexual orientation, were qual citizens under the law.

today the united states supreme court in two important decisions brings us that much closer to true equality. in the decision striking as unconstitutional the so-called doma, or defense of marriage case, the united states supreme court held that there was no purpose for depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry the person they love. there was no legitimate justification for that. as justice scalia noted, that holding, that principle, guarantees the right of every individual in every state to marriage equality. in the california case, the supreme court held that the proponents of proposition eight

did not have standing. what that means in that case the supreme court could not reach the parents. but everything that the supreme court said in the defense of marriage opinion where they did reach the merits demonstrates that when that case finally does come to the united states supreme court on the merits, marriage equality will be the law throughout this land. our plaintiffs now get to go back to california and together with every other citizens of california marry the person they ove. and the next step is to translate the promise that was in lawrence and it was reaffirmed today in the doma case that every citizen in every state has the right to marry the

person that they love. the supreme court's decision on standing is important for another reason. when we started out in this case, we said we were going to prove three things. we were going to prove marriage was a fundamental right. and the other side accepted that. we said, second, we were going to prove that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry the person they love seriously harmed them and seriously harmed the children they were raising. and even the opponents agreed with that. and third, we said we were going to prove that allowing everyone to marry the person that they loved, regardless of sexual orientation, did not, could not harm anyone. and not only did the proponents

on cross-examination have to accept that, but today the united states supreme court said as much because they said the proponents have no concrete injury. they cannot point to anything that harms them because these two loving couples, and couples like them throughout california, are now going to be able to get married. so this is a wonderful day for our plaintiffs. it's a wonderful day for everyone around this country and california in particular that wants to be able to marry the person they love. but it's a wonderful day for america because we have now taken this country another important step towards guaranteeing the promise that is in our constitution, in our declaration of independence that all people are created equal. that all people have inalien able right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. this is a great day.

we thank the supreme court. we thank all of you. and perhaps most importantly we thank all of the people who have devoted so much to this battle over so many decades. people who did it at a time when it was not as easy as it was for ted olson and myself to go into court. the overwhelm thing i regret today is my friend and colleague ted olson can't be here. he has been a leader in this battle for the last four years. he is unfortunately today in another court, in another part of the country arguing another case. but his spirit is here and he will be with me tonight and we will celebrate because this is a victory not just for us, not just for the plaintiffs, not even just for the people who have worked for this so many decades, but for all americans. thank you. >> we'll now have comments from chris perry and sandy, plaintiffs in the case.

>> today is a great day for american children and families, sandy and i want to say how happy we are not only to be able to return to california and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in california no matter where you live, no matter who your parents are, no matter what family you are in, you are equal, you are as good as your friends' parents and as your friends. we believe from the very beginning that the importance of this case was to send a message to the children of this country that you are just as good as everybody else no matter who you love, no matter who your parents love. and today we can go back to california and say to our own children, all four of our boys, your family is just as good as everybody else's family. we love you as much as anybody else's parents love their kids. and we are going to be equal.

now, we will be married and we will be equal to every other family in california. thank you. >> today we want to say thank you to all of you. thank you to our supporters. thank you to our amazing lawyers. thank you to the constitution. and thank you to justice that was served today in this court with an amazing day. we thank the justices for overturning doma. it's so, so important for us and all families. and we thank the justices for letting us get married in california. but that's not enough. it's got to go nationwide. we can't wait for that day. it's not just about us. it's about kids in the south, it's about kids in texas. and it's about kids everywhere. we really, really want to take this fight and take it all the way and get equality for everyone in this entire country. thank you-all. it's been a pleasure and an onor to represent you. >> we'll hear from jeff and

tommy, also plaintiffs in the case. >> i don't need these. our desire to do something and get involved in this case, to be plaintiffs, was very important to us. perry changed the conversation. it altered the game. it created a groundswell of momentum and passion that brought us here to the supreme court today. today the court said that i am more equal, that we are more equal, our love is just like our parents and our grandparents, and that any children that we may have in the future will be more secure. i look forward to growing old with the man i love. our desire to marry has only deepened the last four years, as has our love and commitment to one another. we look forward to using the words married and husband because those words do matter.

they are important. i said it in my testimony in court, if they weren't important, we wouldn't be standing here today. i'd like to give special thanks to ted and david and the entire legal team, but ted and david specifically because their passion for equality is only trumped by the size of their heart. i'd like to thank chris and sandy for taking this ride with us, to chad for his amazing strategic vision. to adam and the entire team at the american foundation for equal rights. and for the supreme court that we have received from count -- support that we have received from countless people we don't even know but who will benefit just as profoundly from this ruling today. thank you very much. today is a great day to be an american. >> i'm not sure i can add anything after those three great statements. including our amazing lawyer. today's a great day.

we entered this building we always see those words, equal justice under the law. and today we are closer to that equality. we are lucky, and we know that the fight continues across this country. we cannot forget our lgbt brothers and sisters that are in states that still discriminate against them and we will not allow it. we'll continue the fight until all of us are equal. prop 8 did one thing. it really helped us turn arranger into action. -- anger into action. it led to foundation, the american foundation for equal rights. it led to this case and today's victory as well. and we stand on the shoulders of so many people that came before us. people that risked their lives to stand up and be who they are. they gave us the legs to stand up on today. they gave us the mom yum to run with and the voice -- momentum to run with and the voice to speak loudly and say proudly that we are gay. we are american. and we will not be treated like second class citizens.

although we celebrate today, although we celebrate today we work to make sure that everyone like jeff and i and chris and sandy, we just want to get married because it's the natural next step in our relationship. we want to join the institution of marriage not to take anything away but to strength general it and live up to its ideals. today is a good day. it's the day i finally get to look at the man that i love and finally say, will you please arry me? >> we'll now hear from the co-founder ear current president of the human rights campaign, chad griffin. >> thank you very much, adam. thanks to these incredible plaintiffs and to the legal team led by ted olson and david bois. what a magnificent job they have done representing thousands upon

thousands of people in california and ultimately around this country. thanks to these historic decisions today, we are one step closer to finally realizing those words inscribed upon that building behind me. equal justice under law. and today at long last this nation has wiped away the shame of proposition 8 and the discriminatory defense of marriage act once and for all. but the work of equality is far from complete. and at this moment of celebration, we got to rise to this historic occasion with an urgent new commitment, a commitment to the gay and lesbian americans in the 37 states without marriage equality who didn't feel the reach of justice by today's decisions. it took less than five years to strike down proposition 8 and to

restore marriage equality to the most populous state in this land. so today let's set a new goal. within five years we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states in this country. .

my law partner, dave olson, is in court. i want to say a few words. first of all, proposition 8 is dead. let's let the weddings begin. people can get married in california. [applause] and the two decisions together, i have copies, really paved the way for what chad griffin just said, marriage equality in this country. with marriage equality back in california, 40% of the population in the united states is covered by marriage equality. and the doma decision, the framework that's laid out by the court in doma, paves the

way for striking down marriage restrictions across this country, so this is a huge day and we're so pleased. it's a great day for the supreme court. the court has demonstrated its commitment to equality and justice and fairness, found that gay and lesbian citizens cannot be treated unequally, cannot be treated like second-class citizens. that's a fundamental, fundamental point, and it's going to carry the day. the wave that started four years ago in this country towards equality just got way bigger and it's going to sweep this country and we are going to have equality across this country for all citizens very soon. thank you very much. [applause] now we'll take your questions. [phone ringing] no questions. we silenced you. >> san francisco, they are celebrating right now. we wish we were with you. >> we are on our way to california and we'll see you in los angeles and san francisco in the next day or so.

[applause] may the marriages begin. >> thank you! [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> thank you so much. >> congratulations. what a day. >> congratulations. >> hope for the best. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i'm greg scott from alliance defending freedom. alliance defending freedom along with lead counsel cooper and kirk, defending the constitutionality of proposition 8 here at the

supreme court. we have short remarks of a couple key players on that team. first, austin, senior counsel at alliance defending freedom. andrew, general counsel for protectmarriage.com. and chairman of protectmarriage.com ron. following their remarks, we will be available for individual interviews if you'd like to have one. thank you. >> good morning. again, my name is austin, nimocks, senior counsel with alliance defending freedom, and we are the co-counsel defending proposition 8 in the hollingsworth case. we're disappointed about the supreme court's decision on standing, but we are happy that proposition 8 does remain the law of the state of california. as many are aware unless struck own by an apellate court, this is the law of california and it remains the law of california in light of the supreme court's ruling, striking down and

vacating the ninth circuit's decision. the proponents of proposition 8 and the legal team defending it will continue to defend proposition 8 unless and until there is an apellate court decision with jurisdiction that strikes it down. and we do hope, expect and believe that the officials of the state of california will continue to honor proposition 8 and enforce it as the law of the state of california. thank you. and now -- excuse me -- -- i'm going to introduce andy, general counsel for protectmarriage.com, the organization defending proposition 8. >> good morning. just to echo those remarks and to say specifically that it's important to understand today's ruling has completely nullified the ninth circuit's ruling against proposition 8. that precedent has been wiped away by the supreme court. and so there is currently today no apellate court decision in

validating proposition 8 and we remain committed to the continued enforcement of proposition 8 until there is a statewide order saying otherwise in california. we have ron, our chairman, who would like to make a brief comment as well. >> thank you. on behalf of the committee for rop 8 legal defense fund and protectmarriage.com, we're grateful for the people of california, hundreds of thousands of people walking and talking about the meaning and purpose of marriage in california and across the country. we're grateful to chuck cooper and cooper and kirk law firm to, to alliance defending freedom and for andy for his general counsel help. we're grateful for all that we've done. we recognize that this has taken place since the day after prop 8 passed on november 4, 2008, and it continues. unfortunately, but we're grateful for the opportunity to protect and defend marriage and the people of california as

ell. >> thank you. >> good morning. i'm anthony, the national director of the american civil liberties union. we are the lawyers for edie windsor and the doma case. we are incredibly gratified that today we have struck down an un-american and unconstitutional law, the defense of marriage act. we are thrilled to have won justice for our 83-year-old client, edie, who lost her life and was treated like a stranger before the law and was asked to pay $363,000 in estate taxes. we are thrilled that the impact goes far beyond edie's very important case, that this case will have ripple effects all across this country. equal protection standard that now that the supreme court held this morning gives us an opportunity for fighting against laws that discriminate

against lebt individuals in housing, -- lgbt individuals in housing, employment. it also gives us a chance to undue domas that define marriage as only between a man and a woman that is fundamentally un-american. we are thrilled at the prospects, of course, we truly stand at a tipping point today to winning the struggle for lgbt equality. the fight is by no means over. now we fake it to the states. we fight law by law, state by state to get full marriage equality for every american because that's what the constitution stands for. thank you very much.

>> here on c-span and c-span radio we've been hearing some of the reaction, watching some of the reaction of the participants in the two cases which were announced today, decisions in the doma case, the defense of marriage act case, and the proposition 8 case, the proposition approved by california voters a couple of years ago outlawing gay marriage in that state. in the doma case, the court struck down that provision, the defense of marriage act.

and in the same-sex marriage case, they returned it back to the state. we have a couple of -- a lot of reaction on twitter and we're opening up our phone lines again for your reaction as well. the numbers to use for republicans it's 202-585-3885. for democrats 202-585-3886. independents and otherses, it's 202-585-3887. there's lots of additional reaction, obviously. at about 12:15, in an hour or so, we'll take you live to a news conference with the members of the house republican study committee, including steve scalise, the chairman of that committee. they'll have reaction to the court's rulings today. look for that live here on c-span3 and, again, that's supposed to be coming up at about 12:15 today. the house is in today. philadelphia is first up, kate has been waiting patiently on the independent line. go-ahead. thanks for waiting. -- go ahead. thanks for waiting. caller: hi, good morning.

thank you so much. i'm here with my friend, just graduated for drexel law, we're studying for the bar exam. we want to say from a legal perspective, we're happy to know when a fundamental right that sgranted it can't be taken away. we look forward to studying careful consideration from the supreme court. and from a personal perspective, i wanted to add that i'm so excited to know that my friends can be happy and love husband and husband and wife and wife just as i am happy with my husband. host: what area of law do you hope to practice? caller: i will be practicing labor and employment law. host: well, thanks for joining us this morning. we're also keeping an eye on twitter. a tweet from the president shortly after the rulings this morning, wanted to show that to you.

host: let's go to robert in virginia on our republican line. go ahead. in virginia, robert, hello. caller: hello. how are you, sir? host: doing fine, thank you. caller: i just wanted to say that it's that law has been around for years. know california has done it, but the whole same-sex thing, i'm not entirely wild about the whole idea myself. host: so what do you think of the rulings today? caller: i think -- well, i think it's ridiculous. it's pointless, honestly. that's my idea of the ruling. i don't believe in it, never have, never will. host: again, there were two rulings today. the court striking down the

defense of marriage act and then ruling on the same-sex marriage case, the so-called proposition 8 case. here's a view from amy who has been blogging for scotus, the supreme court blog, the folks goings.s at the here's the plain english on hollingsworth v. perry, she rights.

host: that's from amy howe of scotus blog this morning. let's go to john, south carolina. lisa on our democrats line. caller: hi, good morning. thank you. i just wanted to let you know that i'm the mother of three sons, two straight and one gay, who's actually a 22-year-old law student standing in front of the court as we speak. i'm happy that doma has been overturned. and now all my sons will have equal benefits. but i hope soon that same-sex marriage will be allowed throughout our country so that all my sons will be able to enjoy their lives with the person that they love. my youngest son will make a wonderful husband and parent, and no one has the right to tell him that it's forbidden. i hope when he meets the man that he loves that he can get married at our home in south carolina, which is where it's now illegal.

as any mother, i look forward to his happy future and being a grandmother to his children, and i hope that we soon bring marriage equality to all the states, including south carolina. host: well, your kids are joining a fairly sizeable crowd outside of the supreme court that's still there. we're keeping our eye open for any possible additional news conferences. we do know coming up in about 15 minutes or so we're expected to hear from house democratic leader nancy pelosi and the lgbt caucus up on capitol hill. we'll take you live as we're able. littleton, massachusetts, next up. caller: yes, i'd like to make three quick points. this decision, the supreme court today, makes democracy meaningless. and not only in california. the defense of marriage act has -- struck down by black back world justices who appear to be -- people at the democratic ballot box. it reflects a contempt of the common law and that is

regarding the definition of marriage. finally, even from a strictly -- winian homosexuality makes no sense. says the purpose of marriage is not abnormal sexual friendship but the continuation of the species, not the hindrance or the imped men's of this. this definition of equality and justice are simply a reuss that goes against the -- radios that goes against the very e-- roose that goes against the very equality of nature. host: we're getting reaction from newspapers. online. headline there from "the washington post," victory for gay marriage. we'll show you more as we move on to lincoln, delaware. republican line, janice. welcome. go ahead. caller: yes. my point on same-sex marriage, i believe this is a very, very sad day in this country as far

as i'm concerned. same-sex marriage is not natural. it is not natural, in my eyes, and i think it's a very, very sad day in this country and the way this country is going. and that's all i have to say. host: as we continue taking your calls and looking at some of the headlines across the country, couple of things. wanted to let you know this weekend, saturday, interesting chance for you to hear what the chief justice and others have to say about the upcoming or the just completed term, i should say, saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern we're going to take you live to a conversation with chief justice john roberts at the fourth circuit gathering looking back on the cases decided this year, the cases argued and decided. also hear from ted olson, the former solicitor general, who was one of the counsels in the proposition 8 case. you did not see him in the news

conference there. also wanted to let you know that next tuesday, the second of july, we're going to bring you the two cases, the oral arguments from both the cases, hollingsworth v. perry, the proposition 8 case, and the doma case, u.s. v. windsor. heather is in new orleans, she's on our republican line -- excuse me -- our democrats' line. go ahead. heather in new orleans, you there? all right. we'll move to fredericksburg, virginia, this is debbie on our republican line. caller: hello. host: hi, debbie, go ahead. caller: how are you? host: good. how are you? caller: i'm kind of sad and happy. i don't have a bad or any kind of feeling about gay people one way or the other, but i do believe that it does say in the bible what it says and that's my belief. but i do look forward to seeing

a lot of pregnant men walking around, and that i do look forward to. host: i'm sorry. go ahead, debbie. didn't mean to cut you off. caller: i said i do look forward to seeing a lot of pregnant men walking around the street. that will be a joyful day. host: thanks for your call. las cruces, new mexico. you're next. ryan on our democrats' line. caller: yes, hello. thank you for taking my call, c-span, and appreciate all things you do. i'm a democrat. i am straight. i have nothing against homosucksuals. i hope people respect the belief law, my state, new mexico, where we remain neutral. same-sex marriage allowed. we are not against it. the new mexico legislators trying to push it through.

i have views that i say that states should allow homosexual or not, it shouldn't be the federal government. i would just hope that the remaining states, north carolina, south carolina, tennessee, alabama that do not have homosexual marriage in those states, will be respected. it is their state. if california wants to allow homosexual marriage or other states, that's fine. there needs to be states that need to be respected that do not allow it. it should be up to the states. there shouldn't be a federal amendment or federal law. it should be up to each and own state. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: thank you, ryan. here on c-span and c-span3 and c-span radio we are getting your reaction to the two cases decided by the supreme court today, striking down the defense of marriage act and returning the decision in the same-sex marriage case to the ninth circuit in california. again, here on c-span can we will take you live to the house coming up at noon. in a couple of minutes, we also expect to hear from nancy pelosi and others on capitol hill, the democratic leader,

reaction to the supreme court. there's reaction from the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy, the senator from vermont, his reaction says in part today today this nation took a major step toward full equality. host: back to calls. georgia, david, independent line. caller: i'm an attorney at the district court and the 11th circuit at one point. one of the things i think at's the most interesting is if the california government had defended this lawsuit, how

the court decided the case, i believed they would have deferred to the states in this area which i absolutely believe in gays being able to marry. some of my great law court friends are gay. today would have been a contradictory day if it was done differently. i think we would have one decision saying the feds have no right to be in there and i think we'd have another decision that would have said the state will have the decision. this battle is not over. it will get more interesting depending on which states decide to defend it. having living in the south, i know which states will defend it and it's my state. host: based on -- david, based on your experience, you said before the 11th circuit, why do you suppose california decided not to defend the law? caller: well, everybody -- while i was clerking at the

11th circuit years ago, and even when i was clerking for my district court judge who is fairly liberal, the one thing i was told, you do not fight a ninth circuit case. all right. if you can do anything -- ninth circuit case, you're ok. the ninth circuit is extremely liberal and everybody in california knew that's what was going to happen. even with the majority vote to do that -- i absolutely agree with the supreme court. this was a violation of equal protection. but it would come quicker there than it would have the 11th circuit. if you were in the 11th circuit r fifth circuit, and the fifth circuit -- i haven't read all the opinions that have come out in the last two days, but if it was the 11th circuit, this case would be completely different. they would have found standing. they would have said that you can ban gay marriage in georgia -- and i don't have a right to

say 100% -- i've been there. that's why i think california -- excuse me -- the california government decided not to pursue it. host: david, thanks for your insight, again, on the proposition 8 case. reading from the associated press report on this. they said the court has cleared the way for same-sex marriage in california by holding that defenders of california's gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban. the a.p. writes the court's 5-4 vote wednesday leaves in place the initial trial court declaration that the ban, proposition 8, is unconstitutional. california officials probably will rely on that ruling to rely resumption of same-sex unions in about a month's time, the reporting of the associated press. shane is in palm bay, florida. republican caller. caller: yes, how are you doing? good morning. let me start by saying that really marriage comes from god, and by saying that i think that

the government really has no business being in the marriage business. i mean, if you just abolish the i.r.s. then you wouldn't have any of this problem. a lot of this stuff coming up because people aren't getting discounts on their tax returns. if they get rid of that there wouldn't be a problem. like i said, marriage is between god, god and us. that's it. you know. host: to kim in baltimore. she's ouron our democrats' line -- republican line, i apologize -- caller: democrat line. host: my misreading of it. you're on the air, anyway. go ahead. caller: so i have a couple of things i'd like to point out. first of all, for everyone saying, you know, marriage is a fundamental thing through god, if they read the bible they would know that adam and eve was never made. that's not an argument to use against it. i'm glad this has passed

because this is much needed that america has to make. marriage is a fundamental human right. it shouldn't be debated in the first place, to be honest. host: that's kim in baltimore. get to more of your calls in a moment. we're expected to take you live to the capitol hill for some reaction from democratic leader pelosi and the lgbt caucus. wanted to get to some tweets. we're using the #scotus. here's one from rachel who tweets us. this week scotus punted on affirmative action, fumbled on voting rights and hit a home:, but not a grand slam, on same-sex marriage. host: riverview florida is up, independent line. christie, welcome to the

conversation. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that i think that, you know, getting rid of doma is an absolutely amazing, amazing ruling because so many people have, you know, been fighting for this for years and years of trying to be able to get themselves -- to get equal rights for themselves where -- host: christie, put you on hold for a second. looks like barney frank, the former representative of massachusetts, is talking to reporters. we'll go to it now. >> because the obama administration decide it had would not bring an appeal. so the house republicans, using a legal procedure, stepped in. the house republicans had not decided to do that, then the court would have had to issue in the doma case the same thing they say the in the prop 8 case, we don't decide. they would have the same affect of leaving the lower court in place. having the majority of the supreme court give the opinion it did was very helpful. i'm grateful to john boehner bringing that to balance. >> has the wait been

frustrating? >> no. why would -- look, i wish there were no prejudices. i wish a lot of things. we've been making progress, and we'll continue to. >> thank you very much. host: congressman barney frank, former congressman frank from massachusetts. we continue with our calls. we go back to christie who is in riverview, florida. welcome. go ahead with your comments there, christie. caller: thank you. host: you bet. caller: a lot of people who were calling in were saying, you know, homosexuality is not natural. it is. we're not the only species. we are not the only species that has homosexuality. there are hundreds if not thousands of other species that have it. we're just the only species that discriminates against it really. host: christie, thanks for hanging on. to sheboygan, wisconsin. we go to dennis who's on the

republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. get the paws off with anything that has to do with the bible. like you had a caller earlier about the i.r.s. there's all these tax advantages for married couples. i agree to get rid of all that. we're supposed to embrace everything. you have sinners, you have the righteous and you have the holy. we're clearly supposed to let all of it exist. but you cannot pervert any of the three. i mean, you can pervert holiness with righteousness. you can't mistake the difference between holiness and righteousness and mistake the difference between righteousness and cynic. i do seriously believe that gay people are always going to exist, have always exist. yes, it's a natural thing. but what we can't do is have the government -- i don't even like it when people get married in courthouses in a sense because it's ordained by god.

don't let the word marriage, which is a biblical term, be exercised outside of the realm of anything to do with holiness. that's all i have to say about that. get rid of anything in a basically -- incentivizes marriage because i think people get married for the wrong reasons. it's between -- it's between two people. it's got to be ordained by god. if you're going to use the definition marriage, stick to the principles of marriage. that's all i got to say. host: we continue to get your reaction. looking for reaction from capitol hill in a couple of minutes from democratic leader nancy pelosi and other members of the lgbt caucus, we understand. we'll take you live when it happens. reaction -- statement from speaker boehner, anyway, which reads in part, congress passed the defense of marriage act. he says while i am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it's always critical that we protect our system of checks

and balances. s my hope that states will define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. reacting to the proposition 8 case in particular and also the defense of marriage case. it's probable that we'll hear more from the house floor when the house gavels in at noon eastern. that will be here on c-span. will continue on c-span3 and c-span radio to take some of your phone call reaction. to potstown, pennsylvania. kim's on the line. she's a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: hello, hi. thank you for faking my call. i just have to say this is a very sad day in america. -- thank you for taking my call. i just have to say this is a very sad day in america. i love all people but i don't love what you do. homosexuality is an abomination. it's a clear abomination to what has god has ordained in the beginning of this world. he made adam and eve.

this is why -- pray for america states ven if these agree that same-sex marriage should be allowed, it would never be right in the eyes of god. as far as i believe i just very truly -- we need to pray for america. that's all i have to say about that. host: wetherford, texas, is up next. -- weatherford, texas, is up next. andrew. caller: if there is ever a need for a separation of church and state, this is it. every caller that is against the union between same-sex marriages, they keep quoting the bible, quoting the bible. i understand. they're quoting the old testament, back in the fall of sod om and ga mora. i am a man of color. every person that's a black person and you are against homosexuals, whatever. remember what happened back in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's,

discrimination against any group of people is wrong. if you tell people -- like the windsor lady, they seized her bank account, took her money. wouldn't let her go and see the woman she was with for 40 years, that is wrong. if you sit there and you want to sit there and keep saying, well -- jesus never preached on homo sexuality. i challenge one caller to call in and say where in the bible so i can look it up. host: andrew, like you go there. we're -- >> equal justice under the law. those are the words inscribed in the wall of the supreme court, which, by the way, i can see from my office. this is the value and the ideal upheld by the supreme court today. from the start, many believe section 3 of the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. in fact, we believe the whole bill is unconstitutional. today, the supreme court agreed and justice was done for thousands of lgbt families

nationwide. just think of what it means to them. from the start, many of us believe that prop 8 had no place in the state of california. today, the supreme court agreed and justice will be done for loving lgbt couples across my home state. indeed, on this day nearly 44 years to the day after the stone wall riots, turned the attention of the nation into the challenge against discrimination, against lgbt americans, the supreme court bent the arc of history once again toward justice. with the decisions, the highest court in the land, the federal government will no longer discriminate any family legally married in the united states. california will join 12 other states and washington, d.c., in recognizing the basic rights of all families, equal protection will not simply be a promise unfulfilled. it will be a promise kept. today, victory is not at the end of the journey for civil rights, equality, our heritage and our hope. this ruling will only make us

work harder in the courts, in the state legislatures everywhere to ensure that all men and women in every part of our country are granted equal rights no matter who they love. this is an extraordinary -- this is an extraordinary day for american values, for america's best traditions of progress for lgbt americans and really for all americans. this is another day that will go in the history books as a moment when our history ex-- our nation expanded the reach of the highest ideals of our constitution and our democracy. personal say on a note how important today is. i feel personally the inspiration of edie windsor. i heard on many occasion hertel he story of her love, for edie . i know she'll be speaking right now or just later today.

i congratulate her. i thank her for her courage. i just want to say one more thing and that is in march, a week apart, many stood on the steps of the supreme court. one day it was -- hearing the oral arguments on the voting rights act. the next week it was about proposition 8 and doma. many of the same people were there both days, because this is really the same subject, about discrimination in our country. so we have work to do in terms of expanding rights and ending discrimination against those in the lgbt community to make america more american but we also have very important work to do on the voting rights act, again, the same suggest. with that i'm very pleased to yield to a person who's been a leader on this issue for decades, for a very, very long time, our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer.

before he speaks, though, i want to say we're waiting for one more of our lgbt task force members and then they are our star today. we salute them for their courage, for their leadership and for the joy we all share today. and i guess mr. cicilline has joined us. mr. hoyer and then our special guest. >> thank you, madam leader. as disappointed as i was yesterday, i am happy today. today the court stood up for the principles of america of equal justice under law. the supreme court's historic decision to strike down section 3 of the 1996 defense of marriage act opens doors of opportunity for thousands of married couples in maryland and of course we had a vote in maryland of the people and they said we wanted to have equality in maryland. in 12 other states and the

district of columbia, recognizing that same-sex partners married under laws of their states are entitled to the constitutional equal protection of which we have spoken so often. the court today listened to voices of millions of people who said that they wanted to have justice and be able to choose those whom they love. justice kennedy's majority opinion makes it clear, and i purpose and effects is a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages." stood that stigma has thankfully been erased. i was proud to have joined in a brief with the leadership of leader pelosi, with other house and senate democrats making the case that section 3 of doma vylate our constitution and stood opposed to our most value

-- most basic values as americans. is is a good day for every american. one of my first votes when i was elected to the state senate repeal was to vote to some statutes in maryland. that was some 50 years ago. this is another step in redeeming america's promise of equality, justice and inclusion. >> if i may -- thank you, mr. hoyer. in presenting mr. nadler, what ore can i say than to say that he's got a personal invitation from edie when she makes her remarks today. thank you for your tremendous leadership, jerry nadler. >> thank you, nancy. much of the history of the united states can be read as our expanding understanding of

what the declaration of independence meant when it says all men are created equal. in 1776 it mean black men, didn't mean of women of any color or creed. it didn't mean white men without property. but most of the history of our country is how we continue to expand that definition to include hopefully everybody. and today is another step in that continued evolution of this country toward greater liberty and equality. it's a joyous day for true celebration. it breaths life in the constitution guarantees of equal liberty for all. for thousands of married loving gay and lesbian couples, this decision means participation in critical federal programs ensuring security and well-being of their families. beyond that it also means they'll finally receive the respect and support that their life-long commitments and marriages deserve instead of e contempt embodied in the defense of marriage act. passed by congress years ago. for my constituent, edie windsor, it means that the money she had to pay in taxes

when the federal government treated her and her life-long partner and lawful wife as complete strangers will be returned, helping ensure she has the resources she needs in her 80's. we must celebrate today -- today we should sell brafmente it's a great day, but our work is not yet over. we still need to wipe doma and its entirety off the books. that's why later today senator feinstein and i with many co-sponsors will be reintroducing the respect for marriage act. this bill repeals doma in its entirety. the court has now struck section 3 of doma, but section 2 was not before the court. section 2 seeks to excuse states from even considering whether to respect the lawful marriage of a gay and lesbian couple performed by a sister state. we still need to repeal section 2. the bill also provides a clear rule for federal regulation for all marriages removing ambiguity under federal law. marriage is lawful where entered into, where celebrated or recognized by the federal government no matter where the people live.

so this is a day for celebration. it's another day in the march of our country toward a greater understanding of liberty and equality. it is a rebuke to those who still support doma as the court labeled it a product of animous, which means hatred and discrimination. it's a great day and congratulations to all those involved in it. >> mr. polis, will you lead the way? >> thank you. moments ago i was on the steps of the supreme court when these two very exciting decisions came down. two things really struck me. one was that thousands of people were there all eagerly anticipating the decision. and every single person i saw was on the side of equality, on the side of respecting marriage for all americans. it was remarkable to me that i didn't even see one protestor or one voice on the other side to deny their fellow americans

equal rights. perhaps they no longer dare show their face, but there remain those among us who continue to deny their fellow americans equal rights. the second thing i observed, this is the system working. this is the system working for families like mine. this is the system working to keep binational couples together. this is a system helping people raise children without the fear of losing custody or what to do if their partner falls ill. i congratulate the supreme court to make a decision that america is ready for, to show equality. and it is a step toward the committed relationships that gay and lesbian americans have. but the battle is far from done. in over 20 states people can still be fired from their job just because they're gay or lesbian. across our country in schools, gay kids face bullying and sometimes have no place to turn. that's why while the supreme

court made a step forward today, congress still has a critical rule in ending workplace discrimination, protecting kids from bullying and ending housing discrimination. other areas under the law where gay and lesbian americans continue to live in fear. i strongly applaud this step forward. gay americans and lesbian americans want what all other americans want. we want our committed relationships to be celebrated before our friends and family. we want to not have to worry about the responsibility and rights that come along with marriage. and today couples that are married in the states that allow it will enjoy those full rights under federal law. i'm very excited to now introduce the representative from rhode island, david cicilline. >> thank you. i am delighted to be here and i first want to begin by thanking our leader, leader pelosi, and our whip, steny hoyer, who have been strong advocates about the necessity of striking down doma and thank jerry nadler for his leadership. i'm proud to have been part of that brief and to all of my

colleagues. today, our court brought our country one step closer to realizing our constitution's promise of equality for all americans. and i had the opportunity to read the full decision, and what struck me is this simplicity of the analysis and the power of this decision. the quote went through and said doma was designed to segregate individuals, to stigmatize them, to deprive them of certain advantages and to harm them, that is individuals that are gay and lesbians in our country. it denied them access to health care. it denied us fairness in our taxes. it denied us the ability to be buried together in our veterans' sem fares. it simply said this violates the equal protection of the law. a basic provision of our constitution. it spoke very powerfully, and in this decision it has helped transform the lives of millions of families all across this country who now will be treated equally in the eyes of the law. this is a huge victory, not

just for the lgbt community, but for our country, because it gives meaning to our values. this is a country where individuals are treated equally and discrimination is not permitted. and so i applaud the court's decision. i hope it will enspeier us, continue the -- inspire us, continue the work to be done toward full equality. i congratulate everyone that's been part of this. now i turn it over to the distinguished gentleman from new york, sean patrick maloney. >> thank you very much. a short while ago i called my partner, randy, of 21 years and tell him about the decision and to congratulate him. i couldn't get the words out. i realized in that moment it was the first time in 21 years, 20 of those years spent raising our three amazing children, that i wasn't talking to him as

someone who was seen as less than in the eyes of my own country's laws. and what this decision means, i families like mine, when get up and get the kids ready for school, make them breakfast and make sure the left shoe is on the left foot and pick them up at soccer practice and all the things we do every day, it doesn't mean they have to grow up in a country thinking that our family is less than somebody else's and that's a ood thing. and so i want to congratulate the court and i want to congratulate the people who fought so hard to get us to this point because -- because on june 17, 1954, the court said that it was wrong to segregate us in education and

on may 12, 1967, the court said people who are brave enough to love across the barrier, the legal barrier of anti-racial marriage laws, their love matters too. a date 2013, will be that we made more whole the promise of america and the idea -- the beautiful idea that this is as old as scripture and as fundamental as our founding documents and that we saw for the first time today and that it makes us even more american is why i love this country, it's why i'm proud to serve here with my colleagues here in the congress. congratulations to everyone. >> well, this is a great day for our great nation. as an openly gay member of congress, married member of congress, our nation now

recognizes the love and commitment that two people make in states that recognize equality. 93 million people now live in states that will be recognized for their marriages. 58% of the country supports marriage equality. we now have the people, the constitution and the courts behind us in this important decision. also, the prop 8 decision allows for 18,000 california couples to have their legal marriages recognized. it's a very important day. however, it also reminds me that i live in the state of wisconsin. as someone who's been with my partner almost 11 years and married for over 6 1/2, we still face barriers and we have to make sure that every single person who gets in that loving and committed relationship can be recognized. there are still going to be tens of -- hundreds of thousands of people who are not able to have basic things like

hospital visitation rights, decisions about end of life matters with someone they've made a commitment to for decades. this is certainly a day to celebrate. i'm ecstatic but it shows the path we still have to do in our congress and in our states. i'm so happy for the supreme court today. >> my name is mark takano. i represent the 41st district of california. this is indeed a victory for he people of my state. i challenge every clerk in the state of california to start issuing marriage licenses to every couple that desires one today. i feel jubilation. i feel fabulous. i feel every gay word i can think of. [laughter] justice kennedy did something i try to teach my students as an

english teacher. i taught high school for 23 years. i always thought it was important to write beautiful sentences, to reach for the poetic. i was worried he was going to get -- because of the question he was going to get weighed down and bogged down in the language -- the legal lease of federalism and states rights. but today he went for the poetic justice kennedy that i've seen evidence of in previous decisions. he predicated this decision on the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment, equal protection. he used words, stirring words humiliates the children of same-sex couples. you know, humiliation is the opposite of equality. this decision reaches to the very essence of who we are as americans. it is the advancement of our

founding principles of freedom, justice and equality. and this is a -- there's going to be dancing in the streets in washington, dancing in the streets in san diego, dancing in the streets of san francisco where i'll join the leader this weekend. so thank you very much. >> so proud of all of you. kristen cinema was supposed to sinema was sten supposed to join us. i want to mention barney frank. steny and i were at the unveiling of his portrait in the financial services room of the rayburn building and he's worked so hard on these issues for so long. when his painting was unveiled he talked about things he was proud of. proudest most of his wedding ring that he was married to

jimmy, his husband, who was there, and all that that -- and all that said about america. i want to acknowledge his great leadership over the years. when mark was talking about the writing, i was thinking about -- about the proceedings when the oral arguments were heard at the court on doma. and the justices was asked on more than one occasion, did the republicans know this was unconstitutional? and the answer was, well -- whatever. we knew they knew it was unconstitutional because why else 10 years after doma passed would they have a bill in the congress that would strip the court of the right of judicial review claiming that it was wrong if they thought that doma was constitutional? so that -- shall we say, animous that jerry referenced and mark alluded to was something that was definitely

present in that debate. hopefully with this court decision, it is rejected from the debate and our country on the subject. i know my colleagues would be very eager to take any questions you may have. >> what does it mean for transgendered and bisexual couples to push in regards to lesbians and gays? >> i will take that. transgendered couples face a different set of challenges, frankly. in some states they've been able to get married because in some cases the sex of the birth certificate is recognized. in some states their current gender is recognized. sexual orientation and gender identity is two different things. some are straight, some are bisexual, some are gay. again, certainly those in a is transgendered and also gay and recognize as a member of the gender of their current jerned identity in states would be able to also have their marriages counted for federal purposes. there have been again some in the past that have been allowed

to marry because they are identified as a jendered that was on their birth certificate. -- gendered that was on their birth certificate. >> one of the acts that was passed in congress that became the law of the land was the fully inclusive hate crime legislation. people said to us, why don't you take out transgender, and we can pass this bill easily? remember that, steny. we said, what would be our point? our purpose is to end hate crimes on the basis of discrimination. so we recognize how important the whole lgbt classification is, but associate myself with the comments made by jared polis with this decision today. >> the impact that the doma decision might have for the thousands of gays serving in the military, particularly getting them involved in the benefits system there? >> well, it simply means they,

like any other american, any other gay or lesbian american, can get married now if they live in a state -- well, they can already if they live in a state which already recognizes it. from now on, the federal government, for all purposes will recognize their marriage, whether it's military, visitation rights in military hospitals or health benefits in the military, death benefits, anything will now -- going through the federal government will now go to them on an equal basis. >> congresswoman bachmann put out a statement and she essentially said that the decision today cannot undo god's word. how do you react to that? [laughter] >> well, let me respond this way. in the fairness of time, i firmly believe with every conviction in my heart that every american will come to

celebrate this decision. this decision was not imposed on the american people. it merely ratified what was already in the hearts of minds of the great majority of the american people. >> let me add to that, if i may. it's very important to understand that people can believe what they want. they can go to whatever church hey want, what synagogue, what simple, mosque they want. we are not dealing with religious belief. we're dealing with what the state or the federal government does, and we have a separation of church and state in this country. so for government purposes you can be married. the church may not recognize this. it's their business. if you don't want to recognize it from a religious point of view, it's your business. no one is forcing anybody to get married. the point of the separation of -- >> we've been following reaction to the final day of the supreme court session of the court decided in a 5-4

ruling that the defense of marriage act, or doma, is unconstitutional. and also in the case involving california proposition 8 that the parties had no standing. clearing the way for california to legalize same-sex marriage and let those marriages continue. the house is about to come back into session for legislative business. members taking up rules for debate on three bills, two on offshore oil and gas drilling and one with funding the agriculture department for 2014. meanwhile, our live coverage of reaction to the supreme court continuing on c-span3. house republicans study committee headed by conservative republican steve scalise, scheduled a briefing for 12:15. and we will have that coverage for you continuing live on c-span3. now live coverage of the house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend michael rucker from the bible baptist church, wichita falls, texas. the chaplain: thank you, speaker. let us pray. dear heavenly father we come into your presence and thank you for all you have done for this country. we ask your leadership in the decisions that need to be made to keep this country great. help us put aside our personal feelings and do what is right for the great nation and the people of this nation. lord, we would ask you to help all the states that have had catastrophes the past few months continue to heal and restore back the things that have been lost or destroyed in these events. we're so thankful for your watch care over us. keep us free from the tyranny of those who want to take our freedom away. watch over our men and women in the military. we appreciate the liberty you have so graciously blessed us

with. we want to give you all the praise and honor and the glory and we thank you for it. n jesus' name we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve thsmed epledge of aliegets will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and ustice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our guest chaplain today has been the pastor of bible baptist church in wichita falls, texas, for the past 20 years, but his ministry and

passion for spreading the word of god has never been confined to the walls of any church building. mike rucker, known to many as the flying preacher, has been combining his love of auto racing and the ministry since 1985 when he and his wife of 40 years, thatry, began rucker racing ministry. they spread the good word while he races and thatry often sings the national anthem. pastor rucker serves as the chaplain for the wichita falls county sheriff's office and is a regular on the joe tom white rise and shine radio show. in short, he's never been afraid to roll up his sleeves and be in the world while sharing the gospel for folks across texas and the nation. pastor rucker graduated from the arlington baptist college in arlington, texas. he and shry have two sons, michael and -- sharee have two sons, michael and matthew. i'm pleased to welcome pastor

rucker to the house today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? does the gentlelady ask for unanimous consent? does the gentlelady ask for unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: yesterday the president called for more energy faxes and regulation that will hurt the economy and job creation. one of the president's senior advisors even said a war on coal is exactly what's needed. in my state where coal supplies nearly 75% of the electricity and coal plants support thousands of jobs, i don't think a war on coal is what kansans need. reducing one of the most affordable sources of energy will cause prices to go up and that makes life harder for people. the administration needs to stop picking winners and losers. this approach has failed.

it cost taxpayers billions of dollars and dozens of green energy and companies that were offered taxpayer dollars are bankrupt, are faltering and laying off workers. instead of favoring special interests, the house plan supports a real, all-of-the-above approach that will lower energy costs to americans and reduce u.s. dependence on foreign oil. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the gentleman from oregon ask unanimous consent? mr. defazio: no, i don't need to revise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: almost 17 years to the day, that's a long time, the house of representatives passed the so-called defense of marriage act. at that time i went to the floor and voted with a small minority against this legislation. i said it was unnecessary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. well, it took 17 years to work

through the system and finally get the supreme court to act and decide that indeed the defense of marriage act, so-called, is unconstitutional, a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that's protected in the fifth amendment. they said, quote, are the federal statute is invalid for no legitimate purpose, overcomes are the purpose and affect to disparage and injure those whom the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity, written by justice kennedy. by seeking to displace this protection and threading those persons -- treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others. today the supreme court restored justice in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, more than a month ago the house passed h.r. 1911, a bill based

on the president's 2014 budget request that would provide a market-based interest rate for student loans. editorial boards across the country have called on the senate to act in a similar proposal. "usa today" stated, rates are et by washington, not markets. "the boston globe" stated, the solution president obama and house republicans have proposed will presprent what has become a frustrating annual standoff. the "los angeles times" stated, republicans are backing a long-term solution that's similar to one president obama proposed. the senate should pass its own version and then work out the differences with the house. with less than a week before student loan rates jump from 3.4% to 6.8%, the senate has failed to pass a bill that will address the issue. it's time for the senate to come to the table. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> canyon middle school from castro valley, california, in my congressional district, was reegreently recognized as one of the schools to watch to accelerate middle school reform. the school to watch program was launched in 1999 to identify high-performing middle schools that serve as a model to watch across the nation. mr. swalwell: it develops programs to respond to the sensitive needs of early adolescence and provide students with high-quality teachers and resources to support students and their academic goals. this week at the ninth annual schools to watch program, canyon middle school will be presented with this prestigious award. it will be presented by attendance clerk, killy, the assistant principle, math and science teacher, gregory, math and science teacher, liz, and special education teacher, cheryl. i look forward to

congratulating the group from canyon middle school this thursday when they visit my office and hearing more details about how more schools can follow their example of excellence. congratulations again to the teachers, administrators, parents and students that help canyon middle school achieve this award. you made me and your congressional district very proud. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i honor the memory of my constituent, steve lafrance, who passed away earlier this month. mr. cotton: he was a pillar of the pine bluff community. a pharmacist by training, he started his business in 1968 with a single pharmacy in gibson department store in pine bluff. he built u.s.a. drug over 44 years into the largest privately owned chain of drugstores in the country. steve's motto, like my own dad's, was do the right thing.

it was the foundation of his success. all who knew him and all who worked with steve, whether employees, customers, vendors, even competitors, respected not only his business ackuemen but his sense of fair play, passion and loyalty. even more than a businessman, though, steve was a devoted family man, proud father of four children and seven grandkids and the loving wife of -- loving husband of his wife of 44 years. on behalf of all arkansans and the united states congress, i wish to express my deepest condolence to them. like you, we all miss big steve and we are all enriched by having our lives touched by him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. barrow: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: i rise in opposition of the supreme court's decision in striking down the voting rights act.

making sure our election laws are fair is the most important job in our democracy because the right to vote is which many depend. many have suffered for it, shed their blood for it. in georgia one of the greatest proponents of the voting rikets act, congressman john lewis, knows all too well to make sure that open election laws are not only open but fair to all concerned. we can't go back to the days when majorities can pass laws that limit or diminish the voting strength of minorities. i'm calling on my colleagues in congress, republicans and democrats, not to let this issue die. we need to do what is right and ensure once and for all that folks aren't discriminated against at the ballot box. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. house republicans have a plan to create jobs, grow our economy and secure our future for all americans, and we're doing it by expanding

opportunity, not expanding government. we're holding government accountable to the hardworking taxpayers of this country. we're reining in runaway washington spending that's driving up our national debt. we're going to reform our tax code to make it fairer and simpler for all americans. we are promoting an all-of-the-above all-american energy strategy that will create jobs, lower energy costs and strengthen our national security. these are the commonsense solutions that the american people deserve, mr. speaker. it's not fair that washington democrats keep offering up only more spending and political games. real solutions to real problems, that's the house republican commitment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise on behalf of seven

million students with subsidized student loans to urge my colleagues in congress to come together to prevent student loan rates from duck dubbling on july 1. ms. kelly: the cost of a college degree has increased by more than 1,000% in the last 30 years. 2/3 of college seniors who graduated in 2011 had an average student loan debt of $26,000 per borrower. as the july 1 deadline approaches, the student loan debt approaches $1.1 trillion. we are a nation that invests in our nation and that means investing in our kids. mounting student debt is handicapping a generation of graduate who is are facing a tough job market. this forces them from purchasing a home and starting a family. this delay in the american dream will diminish our nation's economic development. congress has come to the aid of our branks and work to promote industry. now it's time to step up to our students by providing college affordability and keeping the

american dream within reach. let's stand together to keep federal student loan rates down. i urge my colleagues to act now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor to share a quote with my colleagues to make them aware of this. it is from daniel shrag, he's the white house advisor on climate change, and this was reported in "the new york times" and quite frankly, i find this quote baffling. here it is. the one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. politically, the white house is hesitant to say we're having a war on coal. on the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed, end quote. and that was mr. shragg, who is the white house advisor on climate change.

mr. speaker, i highlight this with my colleagues in this house right now, because a war on coal is a war on jobs, a war on jobs is a war on the american worker. i have never met anybody that wants to pay more for electric power generation, but the actions of this administration, the actions of the president choosing to circumvent congress and implement these is costing us 500,000 jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. gabbard: i rise today to honor post-traumatic stress day so we can honor the brave men and women in uniform who served our nation. for them when they come home,

the battle doesn't end. that's why we must make sure they are well-served when they go -- they transition from combat to civilian life. nearly one in five of our courageous veterans suffer from ptsd or depression. this number is likely artificially low because of a reluctanten -- reluctance to report these conditions. further, ptsd and other mental conditions can lead to other serious psychological and physical health conditions. in congress we must ensure we work with the department of veterans affairs to address these issues as they face our veterans coming home. we owe it to them theerks selfless servant leaders and empower them so they can be prosthride seamless transition they need and empower them to continue their service to our communities here at home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota eek recognition?

mr. crame inter-- mr. cramer: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cramer: the president announced his intention to unilaterally disarm our entire economy by declaring war on coal. in my state of north dakota the coal industry ememployees over 17,000 highly paid workers that provide the lowest cost electricity to our retail customers anywhere in the country. they contribute $3.5 billion to our state's economy. in case the president thinks we need his e.p.a. to keep our air clean, he should know, the north dakota -- that north dakota meets all ambient air quality standards as prescribed by the e.p.a. i will not sit idly by and watch this president steal the jobs and hopes and dreams of my constituents nor will i sit idly by while he and his e.p.a. impose their mediocrity on my

state's excellent stewardship of our natural resources. north dakota won't retreat if this war waged on us by our president. we must and we will fight back. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the contributions of the first indian american and first asian american to be elected to congress. along with 13 of my colleagues from california, i sent a letter asking governor jerry brown to induct him into the hall of fame. mr. berah: he was born in a -- mr. bera: he was born in india nd his immigrants -- his parents immigrated to the united states.

he served in congress for three terms. he is an inspiration to general race igs of asian americans and californians and all americans. his portrait hangs outside of this chamber as a remind of the values he stood for, values of equality and opportunity. now it's time that the congressman's contributions are recognized in his home state by enshrining him in california's hall of famism yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> this morning in striking down the discriminatory defense of marriage act, the supreme court upheld the idea that regardless of your color of the kin or religion,

country will not discriminate against you. unfortunately, yesterday, they went against this tradition. that we here in congress are elected in a truly equal fashion. we acknowledge progress has , but the n region problem is still there. justice ginsburg's dissenting opinion has example after example. waller county, texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their intention to run for office. mr. speaker, business should cease on this floor until we take up the supreme court's challenge to modernize and reinstitute the heart of the voting rights act so we can all look each other in the eye and say, we are here because the american people and all of them elected us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? the gentlelady -- does the

gentlelady ask for unanimous consent to address the house? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: in four days, millions of american students will finally -- will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. unless congress act the interest rate on subsidized student loans will double on july 1. this increase comes on top of sharp rises in public college tuition and together means that students hoping to improve their economic chances in life have to borrow more money at higher costs to get an increasingly more expensive college education. a new report by the joint economic committee on which i serve as the ranking democrat on the house side shows that 2/3 of our recent graduates now have student loan debt with an average balance of $27,000. for someone just starting out in life, that is a mountain of debt.

an average about 60% of their annual earnings. that means that 2/3 of our college graduates today are starting out in a pretty deep, big hole. the question for congress is, are we going to just sit back and let them get into a deeper and bigger hole of debt? let's fix the student loan problem and get america moving again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. rangel: in the withstanding their background, they don't do it for their color, their race, their background alone, they do

it for the united states, people who never met each other but do feel that under our constitutions we are all brought together to respect each other's rights and we have an outline for that belief that is called our constitution. it seems to me that yesterday, the supreme court said that we are making progress in making certain that all americans are not -- have the right to vote and that negros, as they were called in 1965, have made great progress. but that was not what lyndon johnson said when he was advocating in 1965 civil rights act. he said that no impediment should be put in the way of any person being denied the right to vote because of their race or color. i hope the supreme court will review this ruling. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to thank texas state senator wendy davis from my hometown of fort worth, texas, for leading a marathon filibuster and standing up for women and women's rights. mr. veasey: for too long we have seen the health care choices of women taken over by male politicians who are more concerned with advancing an ideology than advancing women's health. instead of listening to women, male dominance in these health care decisions have drowned out the most important voice of all, these women who face these reproductive choices. i believe these choices are deeply personal in nature and rest with the woman alone. i think we should provide support and counseling and the not limit ey need,

them. senator davis fought hard and fought back against any efforts to greatry -- greatly reduce and restrict any limit to women's health care and she won. thank you fur your grages fight and well-deserved victory. our fight to protect women's health care is not over and i look forward to fighting with you a strong texas woman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. tonko: i rise to congratulate the baking company for 1 her years in business. they have plans to mark this milestone by continuing to give back to our community. over the next year, they will give away 40,000 loves of bread to consumers and charitable

organizations. what makes the company remarkable is quite inch. its people. at every level, the good work done by the fryhopper's team makes us proud. they've always focused on how best to serve our community. on june 1, the organization celebrated its 35th anniversary of the fryhopper's run for women, one of the largest and most prestigious all-female 5k road races which stresses community health and involvement. in new york we are proud to count fryhoppers among our many successful businesses that boost our community pride as much as local economic development. i congratulate them on their first semplery of success and wish them many, many more years of fine baking to come. thank you, mr. speaker. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's now been 906 days since i arrived in congress and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis. mrs. wilson: 37% of unemployed americans have been without work for more than six months. that's 4.4 million people who haven't worked for at least a half year. take a moment to imagine life without a job for six months. imagine depleting your retirement savings to pay for your family's food and shelter. imagine the pain of facing rejection again and again. as researchers around the nation have demonstrated, employers simply do not want to hire the long-term unemployed.

there's a stigma, workers just can't shake. it's up to congress to take action. it's time for us to focus on retraining and re-employment programs to ensure that we stop the establishment of a permanent underclass in america. the mantra of this congress should be jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: early this week i hosted democratic leader nancy pelosi for a round table discussion at america's number one art and design school, the renown school of design. it focus opped creating jobs and the opportunities that exist at the intersection of innovation, technology, and design. rhode island is the birth place of the american industrial revolution and we know that on a level playing field, american

workers can compete against any international competitors. that's why it's critical that our country begin taking concrete steps to leverage these opportunities. we need to integrate better curriculums in design, mathematics, and we need to use new tools such as my make it in america manufacturing act to create jobs here in america. especially with the emerging opportunities in advanced manufacturing and 3-d printing. and we need to make sure that entrepreneurs have the -- have access to the capital they need to pursue their dreams without obstacles. i will work on these goals to keep our country at the cutting edge of technology and design. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to

urge my colleagues to address the increase in student loans that is about to happen this week. ms. sanchez: if we do not do something by july 1, the interest rate on student loans which has been at 3.4%, will double to 6.8%. now last year, we were able to come together and make an accord and make it easier for our students to take those loans out so they could go and get an education. . getting an education, teaching our young people, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the arts, music,est, is of national ecurity interest to this nation. even secretary gates said the number one issue is for our people to be educated.

so we must show our students that we care about them and that they, too, have a future in this nation. i urge my colleagues to come together to do something about the student loans. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, with just five days left until the student loan interest rates double, congress must act now. if we do not, student loan interest rates will double overnight, from 3.4% to 6.8%. this will increase the cost of college for more than seven million students across this nation and on the coast of california. adding thousands of dollars to a student college bill. and this will not only saddle students with more debt but it

will hinder our growing economy. at a time when the cost of college continues to rise, we must do all that we can to make college as affordable as possible, for as many students as possible. we must keep open the doors of opportunity for all, and in the process produce a well-educated work force that will grow our economy. that's why i'm a proud supporter of legislation to keep the student rates at a low 3.4%. this legislation should be brought to this house floor for a vote immediately. mr. speaker, interest rates in other sectors remain low to help grow the economy. why shouldn't they remain low for our students? they are our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 247 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 35, house resolution 274, resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1613, to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to provide for the proper federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be

considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources, two, the further amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by representative grayson of florida or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled y the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject for demand of the question and, three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, 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. 2231, to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to increase energy exploration and production on the outer continental shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal states, implement the reorganization of the functions of the former minerals management service into distinct and separate agencies, 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 natural resources. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose

of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-16. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only-in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a

separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, 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. 2410, making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, 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 appropriations. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived except as follows -- section 717, section 718, the words "or any other" on page 64, line 13, the words "or any other" on page 65, line 9, and section 740. where points of order are waived against part of a section, points of order against a provision in another part of such section may be made only against such provision and not against the entire section. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be

considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 4, on any legislative day during the period from june 29, 2013, through july 5, 2013, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved, and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 5, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 6, it shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of july. section 7, the committee on appropriations may, at any time before 6:00 p.m. on wednesday, july 3, 2013, file privileged reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 0, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, our good friend, mr. hastings, who i certainly hope is feeling better than the way he's walking today, pending with that i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. bishop: thank you. during the consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. i'd also further ask that all members have five legislative days during which they may

revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of h.r. 2231, the offshore energy and jobs act, as well as h.r. 1613, the outer continental shelf transboundary hydrocarbon agreements authorization act. and makes several amendments in order to each bill which were germane and compliant with the rules of the house. this proposed rule also provides for an open rule for consideration of h.r. 2410, the agriculture, rural development and food and drug administration and related agencies. these energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will do so in an environmentally responsible manner. 2231 would help reverse some of the current administration's energy policies, which are stalling responsible offshore

lease development on the outer continental shelf it would implement a new five-year leasing land, 50% of the areas that had been previously identified as the most promising oil reserves and natural gas. like the average american consumer has seen their energy bill since this administration started double. a gallon of gas was under $2 when the president was first $4 a gallon now at and continuing to climb. the administration blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects everything from keystone pipeline to the responsible development of tar sands and reserves we have in our public lands, including my own state. this actually hits the middle class and the poor class the worst. fair 231 will implement and equitable revenue sharing plan for coastal states. c.b.o. croble has indicated the

passage of this bill will also reduce the net direct spending of the federal government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. so in essence you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives down the cost of fuel for u.s. families, helps reduce the cost of the federal government and produces 1.2 million new jobs. i think by most standards it is considered a fairly good bill. likewise, the other bills in the rule, 1613, the outer continental shelf transboundary hydrocarbon agreement authorization act will have improved federal management of energy resources which straddle international boundaries. passage of this act will implement an agreement we already have with the government of mexico on how to handle development of these resources, including revenue sharing concepts as well as ensuring that the united states companies who are investing will develop their resources

but not be imperiled by actions which may be taken later on by the government. finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for consideration of h.r. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 agricultural, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies appropriation bill which continues what was common when i first arrived here and then stopped but then reinstated and continues to be reinstated by chairman pete sessions of having open rules on our appropriation bills. i'm appreciative of the rules committee chairman's leadership in this regard. i'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the bill's sponsors. first, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, the gentleman from washington and also chairman of the house natural resources committee, mr. hastings, as well as the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, for his leadership on the agriculture appropriation bill. in short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with good pieces of legislation and, mr. speaker, these are good bills.

i urge their adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah, my friend, mr. bishop, for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me. this rule provides for the ntinuation of three bills as enunciated by my friend from utah. however, the only thing that these bills have in common is that they are overwhelmingly partisan in nature and fail to address the most pressing challenges facing our country. bottom line, we should be doing all we can to help struggling americans get back on their feet. the first bill, h.r. 1613, had been relatively noncontroversial and could have been addressed under suspension but instead, my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle have chosen to take the partisan route by including a provision that waives the securities and exchange commission natural resources extraction disclosure rule of the dodd-frank consumer protection act which requires the disclosure of payments from oil and gas companies to foreign governments. i just simply don't understand why this poison pill was added. similarly, h.r. 2231 opens up new, unsafe drilling off the coast of 14 states at a time when domestic energy production is booming. furthermore, the bill does virtually nothing, and i ask that question of our colleague, mr. duncan, from south carolina, to implement key safety reforms in the wake of the b.p. deepwater horizon

disaster and constrains the statutory review process for offshore drilling. this is a part of the republican drill, baby, drill, energy policy agenda. while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to bring bills like this to the floor which contain huge giveaways to big oil, it is clear that they're not interested in doing a thing to protect worker safety. -- worker safety, the environment, or the tourism and fishing industries. it is astounding that congress would move forward to open new natural gas and oil leases when the institution is not -- has not acted on the recommendations to improve the safety of offshore drilling. if we didn't learn anything at all from b.p., we ain't ever going to learn anything. the successor tovet b.p. spill

commission recently gave ngress a d-plus grade on its legislative response to the spill. before opening new leases, we should enact legislation to improve safety and eliminate or adjust the liability caps upwards. we have a pit i can't believe liability cap now of $75 million. it is time to get real about energy policy. we need to invest in the development of renewable resources which would reduce our impact on climate change and move us toward true energy independence. these two bills today aren't about gas, prices -- gas prices or job creation, they're about bolstering the republicans' political base and lining the pockets of big oil and gas c.e.o.'s. republicans refuse to address the sequester and in-- the

republicans' refusal to address the sequester and limited cuts in security, milcon and d.o.d. bill leave all other nondefense measures like h.r. 2410 before us today, with inadequate funding levels. their refuse tool appoint conferees to reach a compromise on the budget and end the sequester has left us with this disastrous agriculture bill we saw last week. as my republican colleagues very well know, there are $214 million in cuts to women, infant, and children, w.i.c., funding which will prevent 214,000 eligible applicants from receiving the nutrition they need. furthermore, there are $284 million in cuts to food for eace that will result in 7.4

million fewer people receiving food aid from the united states. -- the er, i'd like ioritization of partisanship over policy has become par for the course. the republican farm bill was scuffled. traditionally, i mean, now, 21 years, and that bill at times that it was brought appropriately was a bipartisan iece of legislation. draconian cuts and work requirements imposed on programs that benefit the poorest among us effectively killed any chance of the farm bill passing. rather than see passage of a strong, bipartisan bill, republicans deliberately made it unpalatable to even strong

agriculture supporters like myself. these are not the priorities of a nation that cares about its poor. these are the priorities of a republican party that cares only about itself. the poor are not villains. many are trapped in inescapable situations due to circumstances totally beyond their control and largely in many instances by our making here in this institution. mr. speaker, it's hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when those boot straps, without any nourishment, may be the only thing you have to eat. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm happy to yield four mins to the author of one of the bills in here as well as the chairman of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes.

mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding time. i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation covered by the rule. mr. speaker, in our country today millions of americans continue to search for work. the national average price of gasoline is $3.50 a gallon. rising costs of everything from electricity to food to health care makes it tough for families and small businesses to make ends meet. but instead of provide regular leaf for struggling americans, president obama yesterday announced a plan that will inflict further pain and cause further damage to our struggling economy. the president's latest attempt to unilaterally impose a national energy tax will cost american jobs and will increase energy prices. now, in stark contrast to that, mr. speaker, republicans are advancing solutions to expand access to affordable energy in order to create jobs and to

lower energy costs. the bills the house are considering this week are necessary because the obama administration's persistent and destructive tax on american energy production. the president's latest efforts to impose new energy taxes and government red tape following 4 1/2 years of erecting american energy roadblock. h.r. 2231, the offshore energy and jobs act, will unlock our offshore energy resources that are being held captive by this administration. the differences are clear between the president's current no new drilling and no new jobs plan, and the republican pro-energy, pro-jobs, offshore drilling plan. the president's recent five-year current offshore leasing plan keeps 85% of offshore areas under lock and key. mr. speaker, keeps 85% under

lock and key. that effectively reinstates the morer toa that was off before he took office. the republican drill smart plan would open new areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources, allowing the new energy production in parts of the atlantic and pacific coast. the president's plan refuses even to let virginia develop its offshore resources until after 217 and canceled a lease sale that would have allowed them to go offshore two years ago. the republican plan supports a -- supports the bipartisan wishes of the virginia govern dwhrork congressional delegation and the public by requiring an offshore lease sale to be held. the president's plan suppresses job creation and economic growth. our plan, mr. speaker, in contrast would create 1.2 million jobs long-term and would create $1.5 billion in

new revenue. this republican approach is exactly what our country and our economy needs right now. we can do better than what the president outlined yesterday that stifles american energy production and raises energy costs. i urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation. with that, i yield back my time to the gentleman from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. my hastings: i would say to good friend and name sake, if you can to better, do it. i yield three minutes to my drished colleague with whom i serve on the rules committee from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last week the farm bill failed. it failed in large part because of republican's nasty attacks on america's nutrition and anti-hunger programs. and notwithstanding the experience of last week, in this rule, the house is

considering debating the agriculture appropriations bill a bill that not only underfunds the w.i.c. program but makes it more difficult for low income women to receive breastfeeding counseling. mr. speaker, it's as if the republican leadership hasn't learned from its mistakes. w.i.c. is a critical program that provides food and nutrition counseling for low income, pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as for newborns and infants. it is an important and successful program. it's a key program that helps pregnant and breastfeeding women stay healthy through proper nutrition and actually helps prevent many health issues associated with poor nutrition. despite the program's 39-year successful track record the republicans decided to include w.i.c. in their sequester plan, unlike snap which thankfully was excluded from the sequester and every single major deficit reduction plan, the w.i.c. plan was subjected to sequester and the f.y. 2014 agriculture

appropriations bill includes a major cut to the w.i.c. program they have cuts to w.i.c. in this bill could result in over 200,000 pregnant mothers and infants losing access to nutritious food. tapping into the reserve fund isn't going to cover everyone. 55,000 moms and kids will go without the nutrition they need. w.i.c. is so severely underfunded that the breastfeeding counseling program, a cornerstone of this program is zeroed out. i guess i shouldn't be surprised that this house of representatives would promote such anti-women, anti-mother, anti-child legislation. after all, this is the same house that allowed an all-male republican majority on the judiciary committee to write and promote legislation that attacked a woman's right to choose. and by the way, president obama is threatening a veto of the agriculture appropriations bill in large part because of these draconian cuts. i would say to my republican friends, stop your assault of

poor people in this cupry. this agriculture appropriations bill would be bad enough on its own. it would be better if the appropriations committee would redraft the bill at presequester funding levels so we're not forced to choose between programs like food safety and w.i.c., for example. but what is particularly egregious about this rule that we are considering is what is not included. what's not included is a fix to the upcoming doubling of the student loan interest rates. congress is going to leave for the fourth of july recess on friday yet interest rates are ski jewed to double if congress doesn't act before july 1. we need an immediate fix to this problem but instead of working to prevent penalizing millions of student whors looking for help paying for college, the republican leadership is forcing the house to debate tired, retread bills like offshore drilling expansion that have no chance of becoming law. instead of pushing legislation that helps banks and lenders make even more money we ought to help the middle class and we ought to help our students.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the comments that were just made by the gentleman from massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7 billion of the w.i.c. program and was passed unanimously by voice vote from both parties in the appropriations committee. with that, i yield three minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that is part of this rule, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the chairman. i rise in support of two of the bills under this rule, h.r. 1613, the outer continental transboundary agreements act and h.r. 2331, the jobs and energy act, both bills do three things, provide for jobs, provide for energy security, and provide for national security. let's put americans to work, harvesting the resources that we have here in this country and let's meet our energy needs

because as admiral mullen said, there can be no national security without energy security. let me repeat that. there can be no national security without energy security. let's open up these offshore areas that we have, re-- that we have resources under and let's produce american energy here at home, putting americans to work to provide for our energy needs. i specifically rise to talk about h.r. 1613 which implements the obama administration's own agreement, an agreement signed in cabo by secretary clinton and foreign minister espinoza from mexico say, there are resources under that shared boundary in the gulf of mexico, the boundary shared by the united states and the country of mexico. resources that can be explored and produced to meet our energy needs here at home working with our southern neighbor, mexico, to share those resources and share the revenues and let's do it the