mothers, could hospitals lose funding for training doctors in this certain procedure that this majority may deem troubling? the question is where does it end? how many other ways account majority use our laws to punish hardworking americans? can they take away your student loans because your teacher wants you to read "catcher in the rye"? can they limit your tax benefits for buying a house in the wrong neighborhood? vote no on this wrongheaded bill. and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. we are not interested in raising anyone's taxes. this bill does not do that. we are simply ensuring that hardworking americans who pay taxes and oppose abortion don't see their taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion.

we've had legislation similar to this bill in place for over three decades. this legislation is not a new idea, the majority of americans have long held that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for abortion practices that they do not believe in. i would ask everyone to support passage of h.r. 7 and, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas yields ack the balance of her time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia's recognized. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may dume -- consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: however stark americans' difference of opinion can be on the matter of abortion generally, there has been long bipartisan agreement that federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. the hyde amendment named for its chief sponsor, former house judiciary committee chairman henry hyde, has prohinted the federal funding of abortion since 1976 when it passed a house and senate that was composed overwhelmingly of democratic members. it has been renewed each appropriations cycle with a few -- with few changes for over 35 years, supported by congresses controlled by both parties and presidents from both parties. it is probably the most

bipartisan, pro-life proposal sustained over a longer period of time than any other. just last week, a cell phone poll of over 2,000 adults found that 58% of those surveyed opposed or strongly opposed using any taxpayer dollars for abortions. it's time the hyde amendment was codified in the united states code. h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, sponsored by representative chris smith of new jersey, would do just that. it would codify the two core principles of the hyde amendment throughout the operations of the federal government. namely, a ban on federal funding for abortions, and a ban on use of federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. during the time the hyde amendment has been in place, probably millions and millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared the

horrors of abortion. the congressional budget office has estimated that the hyde mendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer abortions each year. let that sink in for a few precious moments. the policy we will be discussing today has likely given america the gift of millions more children and consequently millions more mothers and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes and trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms. what a stunningly wound rouse legacy -- wonderous legacy. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and

gentlemen, h.r. 7 is not about the regulation of federal funds. through the hyde amendment, congress already prevents funding of abortion and has done so for more than 30 years. nothing in the affordable care act changes this fact. h.r. 7 is not needed to prevent the federal funding of abortion. nor does it merely codify existing law, as has been falsely asserted by those proponents. as a matter of fact, the bill on the floor today contains numerous new provisions adopted after the judiciary committee marked up and reported the bill. this version of the bill has ever been examined, debated or amended by any committee of the

house. yet my colleagues in the majority refuse to allow their colleagues any opportunity to amend this harmful bill today. this bill is far too impact on and its women far too harmful to foreclose meaningful debate and amendments as my colleagues in the majority have done. this measure represents yet another assault on women's care and constitutionally protected rights and should be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mrs. wagner: i thank the

gentleman for yielding and i thank congressman chris smith for his leadership in protecting the rights of the unborn. madam speaker, i rise today in support of life. i believe in the sanctity of life. that life begins at conception and that life is truly our greatest gift. i also recognize that abortion can be a very divisive issue. however, there is an area where most americans agree and where elected officials can come together and that is on the federal funding of abortion. recent polling and information confirms that we have always known that the majority of americans do not want their hard-earned tax dollars going to pay for abortions. and congress has consistently worked together over the years by attaching the hyde amendment to appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer funds from going towards abortion. today the house will vote on a

bill that i am proud to co-sponsor and support. h.r. 7. the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. this bill does exactly what the name implies. it permanently ensures that no taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions or abortion coverage. this bill codifies the hyde amendment, as well as addressing taxpayer funding that unfortunately the hyde amendment does not cover. for example, obamacare expressly allows funding for plans that include abortions through taxpayer subsidies. during the health care debate, the president assured the american people that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions under obamacare. yet, this was just one more in a long line of inaccurate statements on obamacare. by the president and his administration. the no taxpayer funding for abortion act not only prevents taxpayer funding for abortion

under obamacare, but it also requires transparency to ensure consumers are fully informed about which plans on the exchanges contain abortion coverage and surcharges. madam speaker, throughout my life i have worked hard to draw attention to the pro-life movement and do it with love and compassion. i live for the day when abortion is not just illegal, but is unthinkable. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, madam speaker. today we consider h.r. 7, the misleadingly named no taxpayer funding for abortion bill. congress unfortunately already prohibits federal funding of abortion. this bill does not simply codify existing law, rather it modifies and ex tendses current -- extends current restrictions

in the hyde amendment and uses the tax code to penalize the use of private funds to purchase insurance that covers abortion it. denies small businesses the tax credits they are entitled tound the affordable care act -- they are entitled to under the affordable care act, if they offer health insurance that covers abortion. it similarly denies women and families the tax credits intitled to. the claim here is that a tax credit equals federal funding. this is a completely new principle asserted for the first and only time in this context. if we adopt this new theory that granting tax relief is federal funding, then how can tax relief for churches and synagogues and religiously affiliated schools not be considered federal funding in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment? we should all be very careful about establishing this new principle. h.r. 7 is not a codfication of existing law, nor is it just other attempt to enact the

approach taken by the amendment to the house-passed affordable care act. h.r. 7 is a radical departure from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage and it is not justifyble. nor is it necessary on -- justifiable. nor is it necessary unfortunately to prevent the federal funding of abortion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized. mrs. hartzler: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you, mr. goodlatte, for your leadership on this and, mr. smith, for sponsoring this very important bill. whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, i think we can all agree on this. that it's wrong to spend hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortions. yet that is the policy of this administration through obamacare and whatted to's -- and what today's bill reverses. this commonsense provision ensures tax dollars are used wisely and government policy does not violate americans'

basic rights. h.r. 7 brings a stop to government subsidized abortions created through obamacare, creates transparency by ensuring citizens have the information they need regarding their insurance policy, and whether it pays for abortion or not, and ultimately lessens the number of lives ended through abortion. this legislation is important for the future of our country and forces our government to no longer be complicit in taking the lives of millions of innocent babies. we now live in a country that is trending pro-life and a cnn poll shows that 61% of respondents oppose public funding for abortion. forcing americans to pay for services they find morally unconscionable is wrong. the pro-choice institute demonstrates that when tax dollars are used, abortion increases by 25%. conversely, by ensuring tax dollars are not used for abortions, we cannot only save

hard-earned tax dollars, but we can save lives and that's a policy we can all live with. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 7 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to yield to a distinguished judiciary committee member, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortions act. h.r. 7 is a dangerous bill and it's an attack on women's health. particularly women who get subsidies based on their ability to purchase insurance under obamacare. this bill is also emblematic of

a republican party that's completely out of touch with americans. americans want to grow this economy, they want jobs. the response of the republicans, however, moranity gay, antiwoman legislation -- more antigay, antiwoman legislation, and they've even referred to this as a job-creating bill. not one job will be created by this bill. why don't we focus on getting americans back to work instead of doing everything we can to restrict women's health care choices? let's focus on helping the 1.3 million americans whose unemployment benefits lapsed a month ago today. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: may i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining.

mr. goodlatte: at this time, madam speaker, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the chairman for yielding time to me. and i thank mr. smith for bringing this very important legislation here to the house. i rise today in support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will protect american taxpayers from footing the bill for this barbaric practice of abortion, in turn helping to protect women's ealth and unborn life. despite the legislation's bipartisan support, we have heard more than a few mischaracterizations of the bill from our colleagues across the aisle. as a woman, i reject these false attacks. this legislation is not about taking away anyone's choice. it's about giving choice to the nearly 2/3 of americans who

don't want their hard-earned tax dollars funding the destruction of innocent life. madam speaker, as a nurse for over 40 years, i have seen countless births. i've seen the joy in the mother's eyes as she holds her newborn for the first time and i have also seen a young woman lose her life to abortion. those experiences inform my belief that all life, born and unborn, mother and child is a precious gift and i hope to see the day that this truth is reflected in our nation's laws. but until then, we can at the least protect the values and conscience of millions of american taxpayers by passing this legislation. i look forward to voting yes on the no taxpayer funding for abortion act and i urge my colleagues to do the samism yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia is eck niced.

mr. conyers: i recognize the gentlelady, ms. chu if one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: new year, new congress, same old political tricks. the so-called no taxpayer funding of abortion act will not do anything fourth stop tax dollars from funding aabortions because tax dollars are already restricted from funding aabortions and has been since the hyde amendment was introduced in 1976. as one of the five female members of the judiciary committee, i stongly oppose this bill that will undermine women from using their own private funds to buy their own private insurance for health coverage. this is a ploy to drive out abortion coverage in the private market. millions of women who purchase health insurance in the private market will lose access to comprehensive health insurance. it's time to end these games once and for all. decisions about a woman's

reproductive health plong between that woman and the doctor she trusts, not with politicians who would interfere with a woman's private decision. i urge a no vote on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from washington, member of the judiciary committee, ms. delbene for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: i rise to urge my colleagues to oppose this sweeping anti-choice bill that would deny tax credits to eligible families if the insurance they obtain under the affordable care act covers aabortion except in cases of rape, incest, and a woman's life being in danger.

what experts predict and one of the witnesses at this month's hearing testified is that the burdensome regulatory requirements contained in this bill would have a chilling effect and lead to insurers dopping abortion coverage from their plans. while this bill provides a narrow exception if a woman's life is in danger, it would not allow any exceptions to protect a woman's health even when she needs an abortion to prevent severe permanent damage to her health. each patient is different and legislators cannot know the circumstances of every pregnancy. they should not interfere in personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a woman, her family, and her drasm i urge my colleagues to o-- and her doctor. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize the

gentleman from florida, member of the judiciary, mr. deutch, or one minute. i will ask that the gentlelady from texas, member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee be recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman who has served on this committee of opportunity nd quality -- and equality and justice for his entire career among other committees of the united states congress. let me thank the manager and chairman of the judiciary committee as well because we do not come to the froor in argument about each other's

conscience. we respect the belief of others and the conscience of others and the integrity of the decisions made by those who choose to stand for their positions. but as a senior member of the judiciary committee, i only stand here on the basis of equal protection under the law and the applying of the constitution to every single person. which includes a woman's access to health care. and what h.r. 7 does, beyond the hyde amendment which has been law and in law and adhered to for decades, one that i would be reminded of the eloquence of chairman hyde who would be on the floor, discussing the continuation of his position. but right now what you have is, someone is -- mr. conyers: i yield the

dwashede gentlelady from texas an additional minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you, kind sir. if for example you have pretax money for health care or a health savings account, you're taking care -- taken care of. but if you're in the district of columbia and wanted to use local funds you're left on the highway of unequalness. if you're in the united states military, you're left along the highway of unequalness. if, for example, you have been the victim of sexual assault and results in a situation that requires access to health care, you're left alone. federal employees, you're left alone. poor, you're left alone. the bill that we have was just submitted to the rules committee. it was not before the house judiciary committee. we don't know what's in it system of madam speaker, i do not rise against persons' conscience, i rise and hold the constitution in my hand and that is that we have a right to privacy and we have a right to use local or your own funds and

in this bill all of that has been denied. i ask the question, can we pass this legislation and deny americans equal protection under the law? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield one minute to a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, no child is unwanted. let me repeat that. no child is unwanted. there are millions of american couples today that are waiting to give these unborn children a home. a loving home. i don't know all the circumstances, but i do know

that a lot of the unborn are little girls. and little boys. and i don't know about my colleagues but i believe that i know god has a plan for each of those unborn children. and i don't believe that that terminating their life. now that may not a popular thing to say but can't we focus on the unborn and the fact that there are millions of families out there, many of them childless, that would love to have these little girls and boys in their home? thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan has two minutes remaining. he gentleman from virginia has one and a half minutes remaining. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. conyers: madam speaker, i

yield briefly to the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: unanimous consent request, i have a unanimous consent request to insert a list of those opposing this bill into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, there has been a lot said today about taxpayer money being used for abortion. i think it's important to note that that does not occur in america today. that decision was made a number of decades ago, recognizing the tax -- that taxpayer funds will not be used system of what are we doing here? what we're doing is making sure that abortion can't be offered in the private insurance market. that's what we're doing here. it was said earlier that the

c.b.o. had indicated there would be a minimal impact from the tax increase on small businesses if a broad insurance plan was offered that included abortion. the reason for that is that it is anticipated that all of those small businesses will avoid the tax increase and drop the abortion coverage. so that's why there would not be a large impact but there will be a large impact on women because although there is exceptions for the life of the mother, there is no exception for the health of the mother. something that is required by the constitution and our supreme court. in those cases, this can be a very expensive proposition. i'll just tell you an example of a person who i know, vicki who unfortunately, her much-wanted child, all of this child's brains formed outside

of the cranium. and there was no question this wanted child was not going to survive more than a minute or two. unfortunately for vicki, without an abortion, the expectation was that her uterus would be destroyed and she would not be able to have other children. not that she would die, but that she would not be able to have other children that she and her husband wanted to have. it is very expensive to get some of these procedures when your health is at risk. and so yes, we will not have increases on small businesses, because they will drop these coverages. but the women of america are going to be told by this government, yes, we know better than you do, we're going to decide for you. vote no on this very wrongheaded bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one and a half

minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. i would say that the evidence is overwhelming that the american people do not support using taxpayer funds for abortion. and the evidence is very strong hat that should not be allowed under obama care either. it's also very strong that individuals have the opportunity with their own private funds to purchase a policy that provides for abortion. it might be a separate -- a separate policy from the policy that provides their health insurance. it would be probably not very expensive but that's their choice. that's their conscience. that is not what the american people expect to see done with their taxpayer dollars. in fact, as one of our committee witnesses pointed out, a majority of the public opposes government funding for abortion. women oppose funding by a few percentage points more than men. and those who are poor and

would presumably be those most likely to seek government funding for abortion, they oppose it more than those who are more affluent. the bill before us today is supported by all segments of american society and it should be supported by this house as well. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, let's pass it through the house, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time has expire. pursuant to house resolution 465, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. clip a bill to prohibit tax the clerk: a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.

>> madam speaker, i have a motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill. ms. moore: yem, i'm opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualify the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. moore of wisconsin moves to recommit the bill h.r. 7 to the judiciary where the -- to report the same back forthwith with the following amendment, add at the end of the bill the following and conform the table of contents accordingly. rule of construction. section one. protecting the medical privacy of women including victims of rape and incest. nothing in section 101 shall be authorized to thars any -- authorize any party to violate the medical privacy of -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek

recognition? >> i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: the medical privacy of any woman including the victims of rape or incest with respect to her choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance coverage. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes in upport of her motion. ms. moore: the motion to recommit is very simple, as the clerk stated. it will ensure that nothing, nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize any party to violate the medical privacy of any woman, including the victims of rape, incest, with respect to her choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance. here we are in a day, madam speaker, on the day of the state of the union, when long-term unemployment insurance has lapsed, debating

a recycled bill that attacks women's health care. this is truly an example of an out-of-touch moment for the majority. the legislation under consideration today fundamentally lacks compassion. women's health advocates have expressed strong concerns about its impact on women's rights to privacy, when it comes to their medical care and decisions. this bill has damaging effects on women who have been raped, victimized by incest, who suffer from debilitating illnesses like the one that the gentlelady from california described, vickie. who want nothing more but their right to make their own personal care -- health care decisions with their own private insurance. i've heard people continually say that this is a

recodfication of the hyde amendment. we all abide by the hyde amendment. but this bill seeks to strip women of their rights to have insurance, even in the private insurance market. that is why i invite my colleagues to join me in passing this motion to recommit today. to ensure that we do not unintentionally eviscerate protections that are fundamental to women's health and liberty. we're greatly concerned about this legislation, that it would force women in private health nsurance to have to, quote, -- quote-unquote, justify their need for a full range of reproductive health care services. even if their life is in danger. or if they've been the victim of sexual assault or incest. this legislation, again, could remove the option for a health insurance company to choose to offer comprehensive women's health services.

many of us remember, some of us on a very personal level, the egregious history of this issue. many of us remember the shame and stigma that women, victims fashion o', face, and still -- victims, face a, and still do face -- face, and still do face. a woman could be required to provide extensive documentation to save her own life or even prove to her insurance company that she was assaulted. what will happen? will chef to go to court, madam speaker? -- will she have to go to court, madam speaker? will there be an i.r.s. audit? madam speaker, there are just so many unanswered questions. and the answers could have meaningful consequences for women across our entire country. what kind of proof would a woman need to exercise options for health care? who gets to determine whether

or not the woman's sexual assault was a legitimate rape? what kind of intensively private information would be required to establish this proof? who in the insurance company or other entities would be equipped to make a ruling on the validity laid out in the bill? oh, we remember our history as women, of humiliation and public degradation that forced victims of rape or incest to stay in the shadows rather than to get the health care they need and deserve. or to seek justice against their attacker. this motion to recommit simply makes sure that we uphold our history of protecting the confidence and medical privacy of women, upholding women's constitutional right to health care. particularly those who are victims of terrible crimes. i urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to recommit and i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: madam speaker, i withdraw my point of order in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. the gentlelady's recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i find it so interesting that we have an argument that talks about privacy when just two weeks ago we brought to this floor a bill that chairman pitts brought from energy and commerce that addressed the privacy issues and concerns of all americans that have had to go to the healthcare.gov site. i would remind my colleagues that there were 67 members of their caucus that crossed the aisle and voted with us. privacy is an important issue. and we are concerned about that

issue for all americans. i would also remind my colleagues who are required about the possibility of an i.r.s. audit, we have seen many of those come out of this administration. i would remind them when they say, we are remembering our history as women, that we all stand and we remember that the first guarantee, the first right is the right to life. we have a responsibility as members of the people's house to make certain we do the will of the people and over 60% of all americans say do not use my money, all money we have is taxpayer money, and do not use it to fund abortions. this is what we are doing. i would remind all of my colleagues in the house that the bill that is before us

oday upholds and follows a longstanding principle that the american people and members from both sides of this aisle have supported for decades. that is that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on abortions and abortion coverage, except in the instance of rape, incest and life of the mother. the vast majority of my colleagues, democrat colleagues , voted for this same principle and last -- in last month's appropriations bill, yet this simple fact seems to be alluding most of them who have come to the floor today. i would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this motion to recommit and to vote for h.r. 7 and the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee

yields. ms. moore: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. moore: madam speaker, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 192, the nays are 221. present, one. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does -- mr. conyers: madam speaker. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing

until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, the nays are 188, with one answering present. the bill is passed, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227, the nays are 188 with one answering present. the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

he house will be in order. members and staff will please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 1901 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1901, an act to authorize the president to extend the term of the nuclear energy agreement with the republic of korea until march 19, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the

consideration of the bill? without objection, the billing is -- the bill is read a third time and passed and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 4-b of house resolution 5, 113th congress, i am pleased to appoint the following members to the house democracy partnership. the honorable david e. price of north carolina. , the honorable lois capps of california, the honorable sam farr of california, the honorable keith ellison of minnesota, the honorable

lucille roybal-allard of california, the honorable susan davis of california, the honorable gwen moore of wisconsin, the honorable jim mcdermott of washington, the dinatitus of nevada, thank you for your appointments, signed, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. rush of illinois for january 27 through january 29, and mr. westmoreland of georgia for today. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the requests are granted. he house will be in order. after consultation among the speaker and the majority and minority leaders and with their consent, the chair announces that when the two houses meet tonight in joint session to hear an address by the president of the united states, only the doors immediately opposite the speaker and those immediately to his left and right will be opened. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privilege of the floor of the house. due to the large attendance that is anticipated, the rule

regarding the privilege of the floor must be strictly enforced. children of members will not be permitted on the floor. the cooperation of all members is requested. the purpose of purporting to reserve seats prior to the joint session by placement of placards or personal items will not be allowed. chamber security may remove these items from the seats. members may reserve their seats only by physical presence following the security sweep of the chamber. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 8:35 p.m. for the purpose of receiving in joint session the president of the united >> the house back at 8:35 tonight. the state of the union tonight at 9:00 eastern. live coverage here or c-span.

our preview coverage starts at 8:00. speech at 9:00. followed by the republican response by cathy mcmorris rogers. the house today passed a bill that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or health care coverage that includes abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or in the life of the mother is in danger. the bill passed by a vote of 227-188 with one voting present. and the house also approved the rule for debate for the final version of the farm bill, which is set to come to the house floor tomorrow in a final vote. a short week as republicans leave late tomorrow for their party conference retreat in maryland. follow the house live had they gavel back in early tomorrow at 9:00 eastern. and for a preview of that farm bill debate, we spoke to a capitol hill reporter. >> the house debates the final version of the farm bill on wednesday and covering that debate is ellen ferguson. she covers agriculture issues for "c.q. roll call."

tell us about the bill. it's been a long time coming. how much money is it for and how long will it last? >> well, right now we don't have a final c.b.o. score for it. but the two bills that went into the conference from the house and the senate are the neighborhood of more than $900 billion over 10 years. i would expect the final bill to be somewhere in that neighborhood. the preliminary scoring for overall net savings on mandatory spending is about $23 billion. again, that's just sort of a preliminary number, we're still waiting for final number. >> the headline on one of your pieces in "c.q." says farm bill conferees are upbeat about fast passage by congress, despite grumbling, some of that grumbling was about the funding for food stamps or the snap program. how do they resolve that? >> well, what they decided to do was to focus on one common element in both bills. which was tightening up on so-called heat and eat

deductions. it's a federally subsidized payment for heating or cooling costs that states may have used to make kind of nominal payments to people so that they -- hen use that number to for a utility deduction and it goes into calculating the snap benefits. now, there have been reports that essentially some people who didn't have heating and cooling costs were being able to claim those deductions and so this tightens it up. it says to the states, you have to at least make a minimal payment of $20, not per month, but per year. in order for people to be able to use this. now, there's concern on the part of some in the antipoverty and antihunger communities that this would affect up to 850,000 households. but there is the option of states actually stepping up and

increasing the payments, not every state will do that. but some will. and then there's the possibility that some people will still qualify for this heating deduction. but just the first flush on it, about 850,000 households out of about 23 million households who currently receive snap could be affected. and on average they could probably see their monthly benefits decline by about $90, which for a lot of people is very substantial. >> in the weeks ahead of the final version here, we heard a lot of debate also, a lot of discussion about how they would resolving differences over the dairy programs. what was the final decision there? >> well, the decision there, there really wasn't a lot of wiggle room. speaker john boehner had said that he did not favor something called the supply management, theory -- dairy supply management. that was a feature in both the house and the senate bills until in the house bill, until a floor amendment backed by speaker boehner took that out.

so, what they have is sort of they're using now a bridge, they're going to revive something called the milk income contract program. as a bridge until they get this margin insurance program up. bottom line on dairy is that it's always a contentious issue because you have big dairies, little dairies, you have regional differences, you have philosophical and political differences and as chairman lucas, health agriculture chairman lucas chairman -- i'm sorry, house agriculture chairman lucas says, it is, if he dies within the next three days, please put a glass of milk on his tomb stone because that will have killed him. it is usually a very, very, very difficult issue and it proved to be a very difficult issue until the end. but as has been pointed out by the chairman, he did get senator patrick leahy who was a conferee and is a champion of small dairy to sign.

and he also got some of the house members from california. california's a big dairy state. and those operations tend to be much larger than those in the northeast, to also sign the conference report. >> one more issue to talk about. this country of label origin. what's that all about? and how did they resolve that in the bill? well, essentially there wasn't support for repealing it, as the meat and livestock and poultry industries wanted. is a mandatory labeling for -- it basically says where an animal was born, where it was raised, the way it was slaughtered. it requires that to be on the label. and you cannot co-mingle meat that has come from different countries. the livestock people say it's the regulatory burden, it's expensive and it's unnecessary. but supporters say consumers

want to know where their food comes from and also i think they believe they give some edge to say that it is all foreign raised and slaughtered n the united states. there are industries that wanted the repeal, are vowing to fight the farm bill, want to defeat it. and so we'll see on wednesday if they and some of the other groups that are disvaffed -- dissatisfied, some were dissatisfied on snap, some who are dissatisfied on changes in subsidy payment limits, and those who are dissatisfied for other -- different things that are in the bill, kind of come together, if there's enough of them to stop the bill. >> ellyn ferguson is agricultural reporter for "c.q. roll call." you can read more at cq.com. thank you for that review of

the debate on the farm bill. >> you're welcome. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> a remindser about our state of the union coverage coming up tonight. begins at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. c-span radio and c-span.org. with our preview program, the speech is at 9:00. that will be followed by the republican response by representative cathy mcmorris rogers. over on c-span 2, we'll also carry the speak -- speech and reaction on capitol hill from members of congress. and we're asking for your reaction or actually your input on what you'd like -- what issues you think the president and congress should address this year. it's the question we asked this morning on "washington journal" . throughout the day lots of comments. >> income inequality is a multifaceted approach to fix the problem. and laura tweets or writes on baste facebook, i'd like the congress to do their job and uphold the constitution. i'd like to see obama adhere to the document that he was sworn to uphold. i'd like to see the supreme

court use its power to uphold the laws of the land. in s that too much to ask? more at facebook.com/c-span. and this morning on "washington journal," well, we've got a preview of tonight's presidential address. " washington journal continues. our first guest has written a book. aboutlsh joins us to talk the state of the union. the washington times, one of the isdlights -- the highlights the challenge that the president faces. what are your thoughts on that? guest: if you look at over the years, there have been some spikes, but not under obama. he started out, about 54 million viewers in his first speech to a

joint session. it amounts to the same thing as a state of the union. it has been declining every year since then. last time it was about 33 from a high of like 20 million more than that. there has been a decline in viewership. upmight be that he ends preaching to the choir. talking to his base, the democrats and people that lean toward him. willlicans and independent tune them out. i think that is something we are going to be looking for. host: a poll asks questions about the state of the union in viewership, saying that -- what is the likelihood that you watch the speech? 23% say extremely likely, 24% very likely, 33% say not at all likely.

i guess that goes to your reasonings about why people don't watch these speeches. guest: there are reasons you get. one is that it is familiar. people lose their attention. they don't think they're going to hear something new. they don't think they will hear something important. that poll and others, people were asked if they think the speech will be important. 60% of people said they don't think it will be important. they don't think they need to watch. we may be surprised, but so far, it looks like the white house has been minimizing expectations . they have not been signaling that there will be some big, new initiative. maybe they are lowballing it to take everybody by surprise. the result is that people do not think there will be a need to watch. the other thing i mentioned is that the white house does have other ways of communicating with people. we cannot just look at the tv audience. they have been aggressively on housetwitter and white

website and various other places. that is appealing to their core constituency and i think those are the people that will be watching. host: as far as how important 31% saying not important at all, followed by 26% saying someone important, as far as topics, one of the things we have heard about it income equality. the idea of executive actions on getting some of these done. to themeshat compare previous of this president guest:? guest:-- of this president? we're going to bridge the partisan gap in washington, we're we are going to get a lot of things done. that is not happen. there have been lowered expectations. the white house officials have been talking about income inequality. they are little uncomfortable