side of course, this is -- ok, this is coming from coon serve tiff point of view. i agree with it or it's bunk. on the journalism side of it, as you said earlier, we've written a lot of stories that are sort of more pro-consumer, stories that you hope affect public policy for good. . it sort of goes back to my point about credibility. and being careful that you don't make mistakes or that you're a credible messenger. all you have is your brand name. as soon as you make the mistakes or report things are incorrect, you lose that and you're not going to have the trust of reaters -- of readers. >> that goes back to you, larry. a lot of people are concerned that much of the information on the internet and internet news sources is unfiltered. you're an editor. is it because of folks like you and editors that are starting to clean up some of this information that's increasing

its credibility? lawrence: it's a question of starting to clean it up. i think what's happened is that the dynamic of the web is very -- the sort of quick accountability and quick response and dissemination through twitter and other means of, you know questions about something that popped up tends to kind of clean things up on its own a little bit. if somebody comes out with something that's not right or that's clearly proveably wrong or from a source that's questionable, the accountability of that happens much quicker. and i think that over time that's, my sense is, it's built up that, you know, if something comes from say, you know, the abc news or the journal d or "the new york times," you know it's got a strong bedrock of credibility than if it comes from some place that no one's ever heard of because people through experience have learned that a lot of these reports are, you know, built on very flimsy evidence.

jack: i'd like to open it up to all of you. we have a credible opportunity to figure out what it is that these four gentlemen are looking for from us. jack questioner: i was in chicago talking to some old-line investigative reporters over the weekend and they raised the question, you know, speaking about regional papers, "st. louis post dispatch," the regional paper for ferguson, do you think if they had a strong investigative team there would have been a ferguson? >> i don't know enough about them to answer that. i think they've done some very good work there in the wake of what happened. >> i think they just got

awarded the national press foundation for their coverage of the ferguson matter. >> are you talking about prior to the event? prior to the event. questioner: prior to that. [inaudible] >> it's hard to know. i know for instance, the milwaukee journal d has done great reporting on their police department. that's a regional paper that's faced its own struggles. i think it's hard to know whether that would have been the case. brian: i would not be critical of "the st. louis dispatch," though. they've shown themselves to be very tough on ferguson. questioner: jonathan harris. i think you do great work and what you all do, changing minds, is a really crucial part of our democracy. i want to kind of flip that on its head though, in particular

when it comes to some of the regional papers. one example in our state, there is a regular column that is supposed to be a watchdog on government. the journalist is top notch. he's excellent both in his investigations in general and in his writing. however, the fact that he has to produce every single week, i don't think always gives him the ability to drill down, one. there's a pressure always to have content on a regular basis. and it seems like at times one story that keeps on getting sort of twisted around with maybe a different little fact, a different angle, and i fear, and i've experienced that it ends up actually doing the opposite and building mistrust in government, where it shouldn't be, and something that we don't need now. how do you -- is that a phenomenon you've seen? how do you deal with it? how, as an editor deal with

something like that? >> [inaudible] questioner perhaps. >> there's no question when we talk about the advantages of the internet and people having access to news and news organizations being able to distribute their news much more widely, that's all true. lawrence: the downside has been, since the beginning, what you say, that 24/7 cycle,ed knee -- cycle, it's need for quick updates, the competitive landscape which means that any scrap of news or information you have if you don't get it out quickly, somebody else is going to get it out there first and you're going to feel behind the curve. all those forces are pressing against doing in depth, thoughtful, longer term work. and even on a beat reporting level, not just sort of long-term investigative work. so yes, it's been a problem. i think what's happened is that , as i was saying earlier as the seek system has created

some of these new kinds of -- as the ecosystem has created some of these new kinds of organizations to fill these gaps, there's an adjustment that's going on that will preserve a strong accountability and watchdog work. but it's still a work in progress. >> i just wanted to chime in. the tension between taking months and months to do the really in depth investigative piece, and between that and covering the news when you get it and when you get a nugget that's of interest putting it out there, is something i think we all face. i faced it, you know, throughout my whole career. and i'm not sure the answer is one or the other. michael: i remember having this conversation with an old boss of mine, bob woodward. who actually first hired me when i went to work for "the washington post." and he reminded me, watergate was an incremental story.

they didn't take months and months to do the big takeout on watergate. they covered developments as they uncovered them. and that tended to lead to more tips, more sources, more stories. and so i think, you know, very often covering it as you get it can be just as productive and informative for the reader as spending a long time to do those kind of in depth pieces. questioner: first, i want to say, it's been very, very interesting for me. i've heard about stories that i never heard about them before, some of them. god bless you on the black lung issue. but my -- you know, the panel is the future of investigative journalism, right? investigative reporting. so i'd like to have your take or opinion on what about, what

i believe many americans now do not believe that the news media in general has much integrity oring i get -- or ethic or whatever. and my example is, examples are that you've got, you know an anchor that tried to make himself a war hero, imbedded war hero. you have the far right guy on fox saying he was in the middle of a combat thing. and wasn't even in granada or the islands and all this kind of crap going on. they make their own news. then, just a follow up on the ferguson thing, my god, that's been going for how long and took the justice department to get -- to find out that they were -- it's a cash-generating speed traps in ferguson and what not. and the media never got that. it was the justice department,

so in that context, what's your take on the integrity of the sources and the people that are presenting the news to us and what not? [laughter] >> 30 seconds. brian: whatever the shortcomings of individual reports, nbc news is a place of integrity. it's done great work over the years. i worked there for 20 years. you worked there. there are shortcomings, we all make mistakes. myself included. but i think that's not fair to say that nbc is a place not of integrity. i think the viewers, you know, trust it and we've seen that just -- they have a new anchorman there now while brian williams is on suspension. lester holt is a doing a terrific job. their viewers have not abandoned them. so i'm not convinced that that's the case that one flawed person, one flawed story suggests that the whole place is bad. i think that's painting with too broad of a brush, to be

honest. >> it may be the producer. [inaudible] >> i don't know the details what have happened there. brian: i'd just say it's a place of integrity to this day, i think. questioner: i appreciate you all being here. thank you. i've got sort of two questions. one is about nonsexy stories that possibly need to be told. ok, the things that don't have some of the common attractive things. and sort of real good follow-up. because some things can be so profound in the simple one news account that it does lead to change. but some of our social problems

are huge and need multiple following-up. as i mentioned jerrymandering. ok that's a profound national issue and yet where will we get the commitment from the media to look at something like that, that needs to be done? so i guess i'm wondering what is nonsexy news and sort of real long-term things that need a real commitment from folks like you to follow them? so would you speak to those issues? lawrence: that's what we specialize in. [laughter] somebody comes and says, hey, let's look at the workers' compensation system. that sounds like a real, you know, tabloid headline. but we're not alone in this.

as many news organizations do, you try to see all right, is this a real social issue, is this a problem, is this something that needs to be looked at in an in depth way? that's why that's why you do this methodical data digging, to find out what's really there. once you do a nonsexy story becomes a very important and sexy story in that you are saying this incredible disparities in the system that no one's really accounted for before. i think a lot of really good journalism work starts from there. it's not just the big nonprofits that are doing it. questioner: chicago consumer coalition. consumers are always concerned these days about the sources of our shirts and sweat shirts and our shoes. but i've heard no discussion this morning, and most of your articles are international, about the kind of news climate internationally that comes from the work that you do.

nye inbox just the past month i counted them had 20 different requests for research about journalists who were assassinated or in some ways injured because of stories they did. so my question is from the good work that you do abroad, what impact does that have abroad in terms of the kind of investigative reporting that could and should be taking place there? >> brian you've done a lot of that. brian: certainly have. i wish i could say our stories had more impact on what's happening in bangladesh. it's a closed system there and the workers are at the mercy of kind of the coalition of the government and the manufacturers and our stories have attempts to put pressure on the american companies that take advantage of cheap labor frankly. that's how we've had the greatest impact. i don't think we're going to influence the bangladeshi government. but if we can influence, as we

had, tommy hill figure and other companies that have gone to bangladesh to make their clothes, that's the pressure point. it's very dangerous for journalists in those countries sometimes to tell the truth. you see journalists killed in mexico on a routine basis who try to tell the truth about the drug cartels and certainly in the middle east and don't forget americans who are killed, murdered by isis, tried to report on what was happening in syria. so it can be very, very dangerous. i remember every single day i wake up what a great country we're in. where journalists from free for the most part to tell the truth and not face the kind of retaliation they do elsewhere. it's a tough environment. we live in a country with a great first amendment that protect us. for those who don't us use it to the full advantage, shame on them, in terms of journalists

in this country. questioner: good morning. montgomery county consumer protection office. we as consumers love hidden camera stories. they're inherently just so powerful. maryland, like other states, few other states, is a two-party consent state. meaning you can't capture audio. what extent does that interfere with what do you and to what extent would you like to see those laws changed? brian: we're very aware of those laws. you can do hidden camera, you just can't do hidden audioy had -- in your state. we have a list of math actually, when we're considering doing stories that involve hidden camera, where can we and where can we not offer it? there's some ways around it. it does have a direct impact on the ability to do -- to catch people in the act, so that is a challenge. the law's the law. we are very cognizant. in maryland and california it's actually a felony to record somebody's audio without telling them. jack: quick interruption.

as a print reporter, do you find yourself getting involved in stories that need visual, so you decide not to do it and maybe vice versa? are there some great visual stories that just are too long so you don't do them? brody: not as much at the "wall street journal." i don't think we had pictures until five years ago at all. [laughter] drawings. but there is more of an emphasis in recent years to have a more vibrant and colorful paper. there's been a lot of time on the layout of it. it's not quite like television, though, where you approach a story looking for visuals to go with it. it would be -- they encourage us to try to do online videos or online -- compliments with your story online that have either video or interviews because apparently advertisers are really paying for those sorts of things right now. but at the beginninging of the

story it's not something i set out to do. questioner: denise myrrhy. i'm asking this as an individual. i'm going to piggyback on the gentleman's statement about this panel being the future of investigative reporting. and i see that it's all men, it's all white. and the people -- to his point about -- well. to his point about ferguson. the people who make the decisions on what stories to get deep on -- it may not be an issue that resonates with you, but there are issues that are going on. so if this is the future, what's the problem? i mean, because for me, you know, what happens is you talk about people sidelining off to other sources. it's because you're not telling the stories that we want to hear. the decisions aren't being made at the top level that are broad. so if you're talking about the future and you think about the future of this country and where the demographs are going, you know this is a little bit

disheartening. [applause] jack: fabulous question. it would be great if each of you could kind of delve into that, as you look forward and as you look backwards to see who's coming up behind you. michael: it's an excellent point. what you're looking at here is the past of investigative reporting. [laughter] despite the makeup of the panel, i think things are changing. lawrence: there are a lot of women, african americans, his pan inges asians all -- hispanics, asians all taking responsibility in all these groups. so while we have been behind and not as aggressive as we should have been in being more diverse in our organizations, that's very much a top-line question. in terms of the topics that are tackled, it's a fair point. that the people who are in the decision makinging positions are perhaps not in touch, as in

touch as they should be with some of these other questions like inequality and race. but i think that by and large the main organizations are at least making efforts to address that. michael: it's an absolutely excellent point. diversity is important not just for the sake of diversity. but because it does give other perspectives on what's a story. and this doesn't speak directly to the issue of women or african-americans or minorities, but how you view something is very much -- you know, you can -- you view something a little bit differently and suddenly what you sort of might not think of

a story can become an incredible story. allah ferguson i remember covering the boston marathon bombing at the time. and at the time it was a terrorism story and everybody was focused on who did this and were there terrorist lynx abroad, a whole community, a whole -- major american cities terrorized. i remember watching in the day that they identified the brothers and they were searching for the one who is now on trial, and seeing the -- all the humvees and national guard and troops coming in heavily armed and it was amazing. it was like being in a war zone. and at the time i wasn't thinking about the militarization of our police

department. and what kind of environment that was creating. i was covering a terrorism story. but in retrospect, there it was. the same story that got a lot of people alarmed during ferguson when we saw the militarization of police, was fully on display in boston, but that's not what beam were talking about at the time -- people were talking about at the time. toy just use that as an example of how you look at something, and you look at something slightly ditchly, and your eyes open and you see a -- differently, and your eyes open and you see a really major story. that's something that diversity can contribute to but it's sort of all on us to take a look, take a step back and look at what we're seeing in a little different way and you suddenly see there's lots of other things to report. questioner: care for crash victims. thank you for all you people have -- all the good work

you've done. but i would just like to ask a little bit more elaboration on the question of how you prioritize your work. do you have anything that sort of says we're looking for the greatest good, for the greatest number or anything like that? brody: that's a really good question also. part of the issue is that, it's sort of hard to figure out what the priorities should be on a day to day basis. i know i come into the office every monday and make a list of the five stories i want to do in that year. and then a few days later it will be a different list and a few days later it will be a different list. what i try to do is try to look for stories i can do on the short-term, to kind of stay relevant and in the news. but then to try to pick the four, or five stories, whether they're sexy or not, to try to do in that year. so that while you get distracted by all the noise that's out there and everything on 2013 and everything on cable

news you try to keep your eye on the ball on good stories you can do on a monthly or quarterly basis. i think that every good reporter sort of has to do that these days because no one is -- or few peopler are getting -- or few people are getting a year on a story. you have to do shorter stories to kind of keep you in the news while staying focused on longer stories. that's what you have to do otherwise you're constantly writing 300-word stories. brian: some stories that affect millions of people are better for us than stories that affect hundreds of people. stories with visual elements to abc are more more relevant. and stories that we haven't heard are bigger than stories we've done before. those are three threshold questions i would ask and my producers would ask and our bosses would ask. how many people are affected, how do we tell the story, what

do we see and has somebody else done this before becomes a factor. jack: this has been phenomenal. brody, larry michael, brian. on behalf of c.f.a., thank you very much for spending time with us. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the u.s. house is about to gavel in but before we get to, that some live programming to tell but happening on c-span3.

in just over half an hour, we'll show you a hearing on the problem of inaccurate social security records resulting in improper payments to the deceased or the withholding of money from people who are wrongly listed as dead. hosted by the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. that will be live at 4:00 p.m. eastern. also live at 6:00 p.m. transportation secretary anthony fox will talk about the future of the nation's transportation infrastructure. it's hosted by the council on foreign relations. he's expected to highlight a 30-year plan to restructure roads, highways, bridges airways and railways. and how all of that plays into the role in u.s. competitiveness abroad. again that's live at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> tonight on the communicators, f.c.c. commissioner on their recent net neutrality ruling. municipal broadband and the subsidized phone and broadband program life line. >> what i am proposing that we do is overhaul the life line

program, make it concurrent and in sync with the information age. challenge those providers to give more to their consumers. the prices and opportunities have gone -- have been more explosive for the rest of us. it should be for a life line of consumers. get those providers out of the certification business. that has been the number one problem that we've been seeing with not so positive headlines. it is a vulnerability in the system that we need to plug. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> last thursday on the floor of the u.s. senate and again yesterday on cnn's state of the union program, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell announced he would delay the confirmation vote on loretta lynch to be the next u.s. attorney general. until after the human trafficking bill is passed. the president's press secretary

responded at today's white house briefing. >> senator mcconnell laid out a timeline that suggests it could be mid april at the earliest before her nomination goes to the floor. is that a timeline the white house will be willing to accept and if not, then what is the alternative or how do you get her nomination voted on earlier? >> this is the responsibility of the united states senate. to vote on the president's nominees. as i mentioned before, there's not been a legitimate question that's been raised about her aptitude for the office. so the delay is unconscionable, it's unexplained. and the thing that i will -- that i think -- that warrants mentioning here is you'll recall that, as i pointed out, ms. lynch has been waiting 128 days to be -- to get a vote in the senate. the reason that time period has been so long is because the president nominated her back in november for this job. and at that time we saw senator

mcconnell himself say that ms. lynch, a, will receive fair consideration. i think it would be hard-pressed to say -- to make the case that he lived up to that promise. but, b, he also said that her nomination should be considered in the course of -- i'm sorry, should be considered in the new congress through regular order. so essentially you had senator mcconnell in a position back in november telling the president that he should delay submitting her up to congress until republicans were in the majority. now, i've been asked a number of times since november about whether or not the president trusts senator mcconnell. whether or not senator mcconnell and other members of the republican leadership, whether their word is good with the president. so senator mcconnell back in november was saying her nomination should be considered in the new congress. but yesterday when senator mcconnell was asked on cnn about whether or not he was going to act quickly to confirm her and to explain the delay,

he said the nomination hasn't taken that long, if you consider when it was actually taken up. which was this year. he continued to say the democrat majority, back in december, had a chance to work on the nomination earlier but decided to delay it until this year. he failed to point out that that delay watt -- was at his request. now he's in a position of delaying it -- of delaying her nomination even further. despite the fact and i'll say it again, no legitimate question has been raised about her aptitude for this office. despite the fact that she's submitted more than eight hours of testimony and despite the fact that she's answered more than 600 written questions, so there is no question thats are playing politics with the nomination of the nation's top law enforcement official. and it's come to and he. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> go to cspan.org to see the rest of that briefing. the u.s. house is about to gavel back in to begin legislative business this afternoon. work on six bills today

including a measure to fund trauma care centers and one that would exempt emergency responsers -- responders from the health care law. also this week, house members are expected to take up a senate-passed resolution that would disapprove of regulations on union election rules. the white house has issued a veto threat on the measure. live coverage of the u.s. house as members are about to gavel in on this monday, here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i move that the house suspend the rules and pass

the bill h.r. 639. as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 639, a bill to amend the controlled substances act with regard to recommended scheduling and with respect to registration of manufacturers and distributors seeking to conduct clinical testing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts and the gentleman from texas, mr. gene green each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill and i would like to include an exchange of letters between the committee on energy and commerce and the committee on the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pitts: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. this seeks to improve the transparency and consistency of the drug enforcement agencies d.e.a., for scheduling of new f.d.a.-approved drugs under the controlled substances act, the c.s.a., and secondly, its registration process for the manufacture of controlled substance for use in clinical trials. ultimately this will allow new and innovative treatments to get to patients who desperately need them. due to the cost and uncertainty of the drug development process there's broad agreement that a predictable timeline for approval decisions is a necessary component to successful drug development. industry, the f.d.a. and congress have taken steps to

provide more transparency and consistency in the drug approval process. through the negotiation and authorization of the prescription drug user fee program, and a commitment to review goals imbedded in the agreements. however drugs that contain substances that have not been previously marketed in the u.s. and that have abused potential must also be scheduled under the controlled substances act, the c.s.a., by the d.e.a., before they can reach patients. under the c.s.a. there's no deadline for the diarra to make a schedule -- d.e.a. to make a scheduling decision and the delays in d.e.a. decisions have increased significantly. between 1997 and 1999 and 2009 and 2013, the average time

between f.d.a. approval and d.e.a.'s final scheduling increased from an average of 49.3 days to an average of 237.6 days. recently a company had to wait over 13 months after f.d.a. approval to receive a final scheduling recommendation from the d.e.a. the lack of predictability in the timing of d.e.a. scheduling decisions leads to unnecessary uncertainty in the drug development process and needless delays in patient access to new therapies. section 2 of h.r. 639 as amended by the full committee, would require d.e.a. to issue an interim final rule scheduling the new drug no later than 90 days after it is approved or when it receives

the f.d.a.'s scheduling recommendation. which ever comes later. after receiving f.d.a.'s recommendation d.e.a. would continue to conduct its own analysis prior to scheduling the drug. but patients would now have the peace of mind in knowing this will no longer be an open-ended process. of note since 1996 the d.e.a. has not made any scheduling decision for a new drug that was contrary to the f.d.a. recommendation. further, section 3 of this bill would bring much-needed certainty to another open-ended d.e.a. process. manufacturers of controlled substances are required to be registered with the d.e.a. the requirement to register extends to manufacturers of controlled substances intended to be used in clinical trials for products not yet approved by the f.d.a.

there is no timetable for the d.e.a. to grant approval of registration applications. and there is not a process for the applicant to determine the reasons for delay in the application. the lack of transparency predictability and timeliness in the rental administration process leaves companies -- registration process leaves companies unable to properly plan clinical trial schedules for perspective new therapies. for registration applications related to schedule three, four and five drugs that will only be used in clinical trials section 3, as amended by the full committee, would require the d.e.a. to register the applicant or serve an order to show cause on why the applicant shall not be registered within 180 days of the filing of the application. for drugs in schedule one and

two, that will only be used in a clinical trial, the d.e.a. would be required to issue a notice of application not later than 90 days after an application is accepted for filinging. 90 days after the end of the comment period, pursuant to the notice, the d.e.a. would be required to register the applicant or serve an order to show cause on why the registrant should not be registered. such a solution does not force the d.e.a. to make a particular decision but will provide transparency to the process. so companies can better plan when regulatory decisions will be made. i would urge all members to support this critical piece of legislation and thank you, mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 639, the improving regulatory transparency for new medical therapies act. this legislation was introduced by our chair--- chair of our health subcommittee to provide solutions to patients in need. currently new drug substances that have previously not been marketed -- marketed in the united states and have potential, must be scheduled by the department, the drug enforcement agency, prior to being marketed. the amount of time the d.e.a. has taken before acting on f.d.a. recommendations has significantly lengthened in recent years, which delays the availability of new therapies. this legislation would improve patient access by bringing clarity and transparency to the process of scheduling a new f.d.a.-approved therapy. i was pleased to join mr. pitts and mr. malone in supporting this legislation to continue the great work that they

started last congress. i thank them and their staff for working on this important access issue. i want to acknowledge the leadership of chairman upton and the work of the committees' staff on advancing this bill. i support its bipartisan -- this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yield back the balance of his time? mr. green: i yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i urge all members to support this bipartisan legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 639, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 647. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 647, a bill to amend title 12 of the public health service act, to re-authorize certain trauma care programs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will owe -- control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess.

mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i do yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased that the house today will consider two bills relating to the federal support for trauma care. these bills have both passed the energy and commerce committee at the subcommittee and full committee levels on voice votes. trauma is the leading cause of death under the age of 65. it is expensive, costing over $400 billion per year, third only to heart disease and to cancer. it affects all individuals of all ages 35 million americans annually, or one person every 15 minutes. over many years, mr. green and i have worked closely on this issue, to update the law and

ensure that the re-authorization of crucial trauma grant programs occurs. as a result of this coordination, today we will be voteing on two bills that continue our long bipartisan record of support for efforts to shore up the nation's trauma systems and centers. the access to life-saving trauma care for all americans act, h.r. 647 will authorize two grant programs that will expire this year, that provide commitically -- critically needed federal funding to help cover uncompensated costs in trauma centers, also support the core mission for trauma services, and provide emergency funding to trauma centers and also address trauma center physician shortages, in order to ensure the future availability of trauma care for all of our citizens. trauma can happen at any time to anyone. it can happen to a familiar in a highway crash -- family in a highway crash or a gunshot victim or a construction work

who are is injured at the work site. trauma centers must be available for all victims of traumatic injury. getting a trauma victim to a trauma center right away is the first step in saving that person's life. these bills draw support from the american association of neurological surgeons the american association of orthopedic surgeons, the american burn association, the american college of emergency physicians, the american college of surgeons, the american trauma society, the congress of neurological surgeons, the association of critical care transport, the american heart association, the american stroke association, the emergency nurses association, society of trauma nurses the american association for surgery of trauma, the eastern association for the surgery of trauma, national association of emergency medical technicians, and the orthopedic trauma association and the trauma center of association of america. i strongly urge the house to support both of these bills and

i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. green, seek recognition? mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 647, access to life-saving trauma care for all americans act. my colleague and fellow texan, dr. mike burgess, and i have introduced this legislation. i thank him for his leadership and partnership on this issue. the bill would re-authorize vital programs to prevent more trauma center closures and improve access to trauma care. trauma care center grants were created to prevent trauma centers' closures by supporting their core missions, covering up portions of the losses from uncompensated care, and providing emergency awards to centers at risk of closing. the trauma service availability grants are awarded through the states to address shortfalls in trauma services, improve access and availability to the trauma

care and the underserved areas. despite our best prevention earths, -- efforts, trauma injury will -- injury will continue to occur. unfortunately access to trauma care is threatened by losses associated with the high cost of treated severely injured patients, including those unable to pay for their care and a growing shortage of trauma-related physicians. the public expects that trauma -- appropriate trauma care will always be available to them wherever they reside or travel. yet this is not a reality. profound challenges face our nation's trauma centers, trauma systems and the physicians who treat most of the vulnerable patients. i urge swift passage of this important legislation. again i want to thank representative burgess for championing this effort with me and his staff, j.p. for their hard work. i also want to acknowledge the leadership of chairman upton, chairman pitts ranking member pallone, and the work of the committee staff in advancing this bill through the energy and commerce committee. i support this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to do the same and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i would point out that the gentleman's name is j.p. poliscwicz and we do appreciate his service. mr. green: i have no more speakers and i'm blad to yield back if my colleague is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from texas is recognized to close debate. mr. burgess: many people nowadays are familiar with what's called the golden hour, the hour after an accident or injury where the ability to save life and limb is vastly increased. it is imperative to re-authorize these programs, they are critically needed for our citizens. i urge an aye vote on the bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: all

time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 647? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. green: i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. green: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 648. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h r. 64 , a bill to

amend title 12 of the emergency care act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and the gentleman from texas, mr. gene green, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. mr. burgess: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. burgess: the trauma systems and -- of emergency -- the trauma systems and regionalization of emergency care re-authorization act h.r. 648 is identical to legislation that passed last year this support extends back to 1990 when the grant was created and authorized. this re-authorization allows

funding for trauma systems allowers in funding of their development and the regionalization of emergency care. these are improved to improve -- are designed to improve patient outcomes, and cut costs where i believe there is bipartisan agreement. trauma systems are organized efforts in a defined geographic area that deliver the full range of care to injured patients. many members of the subcommittee have trauma systems in their districts or ones nearby that are able to serve their constituents. regionalizing emergency care allows states to coordinate their resources and helps first responders act faster, leading to lower costs and better outcomes. a study released last year found that patients live neering a recently closed trauma facility were 20% more likely to die from their injury. two years after closure, likelihood of death increased to 29%, emphasizing the importance of these grants. this legislation is broadly

supported by medicine, sharing a list of supporting organizations i read previously on h.r. 647. it is bipartisan. i would stress it has gone through regular order. i want to thank chairman upton and chairman pitts as well as ranking member pallone and rajing member green for their help and support on this legislation. i want to thank -- and ranking member green for their help and support on this legislation. i want to thank our staff, including adrian y who championed both of these bills and is now working on the committee. mr. green and i have worked on these issues literally for years. i appreciate his continued partnership on this bill and i want to thank his staff, kristen o'neill. i want to thank j.p. who shepherded this bill through the entire process. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. green,

sec recognition? mr. green: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. green: i rise in support of h.r. 648, the trauma systems regionalation -- regionalization act. i thank mr. burgess for his leadership and commitment to this issue. the bill re-authorizes programs that provide grants for states for planning and implementing trauma care systems and establishing pilot programs of innovative models. ideally trauma and emergency care systems respond quickly and efficiently to ensure that seriously injured individuals reeff seve care they need in the golden hour, the time period when medical intervention is most effective at saving lives. however, unintentional injuries remains the leading cause of death for americans age 44 years and younger and access to trauma care is inconsistent throughout the country.

emergency departments and trauma centers are overcrowded, emergency care system is splintered and surgical specialists are often unavailable to patient whence they need them this legislation helps establish a system that saves lives and is a function -- and improves functioning of our tra -- trauma care system. i thank mr. burgess i want to acknowledge the work of ranking member pallone, chairman pitts for their work on this i support this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to do the same and mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess is recognized. mr. burgess: i don't believe i have other speakers seeking time on this issue, so i reserve my time to close. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burgess reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized.

mr. green: we have no further speakers, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess is recognized to close debate. mr. burgess: let me conclude by strongly urging all members of the house to vote in favor of this legislation. i thank you for the recognition and yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having now expired on h.r. 648, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 648? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. green: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i write today to resign from the house small business committee. while i appreciate the honor of being appointed, in order to best serve the constituents of texas' 23rd congressional district, i believe i must focus on my existing committee assignments. with my background in the intelligence community, cybersecurity and representing the district with the largest length of u.s.-mexico border, my ability to focus on my information technology subcommittee chairmanship and border and maritime subcommittee vice chairmanship is where i believe i can be most valuable to the constituents and colleagues in the house. i appreciate your timely consideration of this request. signed sincerely will hurd, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's resignation is accepted. pursuant to clause 12a of rule

1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:30 p.m. today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in our regular segment on "your money," we look at the national school lunch program. joining us is kevin concannon undersecretary of the u.s. department of agriculture. good morning, sir. guest: good morning. host: $16 billion spent in 2014 for the national school lunch program. what is the national school lunch program? what does it do right now? guest: the national school lunch

program is available to all 50 million american students who attend schools from kindergarten to grade 12 across the u.s. each day just over 30 million students have lunch at school and about 14 million students have breakfast each day. interestingly enough, the program started at 1936 after world war ii when american leaders gather to reflect on that challenging period and said that we drafted millions of men who are struggling with the rigors of military training. let's do something to make sure american schoolchildren have access to healthy foods at school. that is the origin of the program in 1936. it has been upgraded subsequently and now we are in a period of time where, happily from my point of view, we have one of the strongest science-based yields programs in

the history of the program. host: one of the reasons we had to come on is due to calls from some members in congress to make some changes on the requirements that were instituted a couple years ago. let's get your reaction to them. first of all, the nutritional requirements from usda are based on calorie content. guest: it is based on the calorie limits age-adjusted for the first time, and they are based on recommendations given to us by the independent institute of medicine. they reflect the latest nutritional science. host: we can see them on the screen. reduced amounts of whole-grain-rich foods, and of -- increased a massive whole-grain-richards and reduce the massive trans fats and sodium. guest: that started in 2013, the

school year. plus the consumption of more fruits and vegetables. if there's any part of the american diet that most of us fail at, we don't consume enough fruits and vegetables in our diet. this is the new school meal patterns now and it requires rich investor balls the research -- it requires fruits and vegetables to be served every day. i was in oregon a few weeks ago and a few weeks before that in utah and this past week in maryland. i go to schools and i try to eat breakfast or lunch with students. when i'm hearing is that the program is making a difference. interestingly enough, the strongest advocates for the program are turning out to be classroom teachers building principles, as well as the school food service folks who seek kids every day -- who seek

kids every day. we know it makes a difference in their ability to learn but we also know it is going to socialize american students into healthier eating. about one third of american youth are at risk of preventable disease conditions like diabetes principally because of their weight. we have a real public health challenge in the country with of the challenges associated with obesity. host: let me put the phone numbers on the screen and read them. we will do something a little bit different in this segment for kevin concannon. students and parents, call this number host: so we will be talking with our guest, kevin concannon of the agriculture department, for another 40 minutes or so. i want to ask you about the first lady, michelle obama. what is her role in all of this? sheguest: she has been a major

champion. we would've not thought and the bill over the goal line with our engagement, her advocacy. she championed it and she continues to do so. i will be going before congress tomorrow seeking additional budget support for these programs. the white house has been a very strong advocate for us. host: this piece in "the hill" says "gop looking to take a bite out of school lunches." senator john hoeven has introduced a bill to relax the schools when it comes to serving whole-grain products and reducing sodium levels. he says "we have got to have flexibility. we can't have a federal one-size-fits-all mandate." guest: well, the program is anything but one-size-fits-all actually. there are a lot of

misunderstandings that you seen some of these things made, sometimes by elected folks other times by folks who are less directly involved. first of all, the standards are science-based, based on the recognitions, ultimately, the dietary guidelines, professional nutritionists, public health folks. on the issue of sodium, most of the schools across the u.s. are meeting the current sodium standards and on the whole grain side, we said to schools that if you have a problem getting products that are whole-grain-rich, we will grant you a waiver in that regard, and we have granted 1900 waivers out of 2100 420 200 that have requested. my concern on congress to injecting itself in an enshrining something in law like that is that it is going to weaken the program, needlessly

so in that regard. schools are doing a good job. more than 92% of schools across the country, 93% of all of all 100,000 public and private and parochial schools, our meeting these new standards. state of course is what i say. don't weaken it, don't cave in to the interest of industry or those folks who don't -- haven't quite arrived there yet. interestingly enough, the oversight -- you mentioned the $16 billion in the program. we have not financially penalized a single school in the three years. we recognize that some schools will have trouble getting there. let's not start injecting ourselves and putting elements in federal law that will become frankly, barriers to addressing the health and the nutritional needs of american students. host: we go to calls now for kevin concannon. fred is calling in on our line

for students and parents. caller: hi. my question is i have two students right now in high school and middle school. they mostly now pack a lunch because they don't like the new lunch program. my question is, we have a lot of subsidized lunches for kids, getting free lunches or partial free, but a lot of those kids aren't liking the food and they are just throwing it away. has there been a study on the $16 billion, how much is going in the garbage? guest: yes, actually, that is a great question. there are several studies in that regard, one recently released by the right-center out of the university of connecticut . their study shows that one students are consuming more fruits and vegetables. two, there is less food waste

than previously existed. food waste has been initial not only in schools but in homes that has been an issue not only in schools but in homes, in terms of people at the end of the month looking in the refrigerator seeing produce that is gone old and throw it out. there are a number of strategies with schools to reduce that. we have wonderful relationships with cornell university. they have a center for behavioral economics where they work with schools to promote the practice of something we call "offered vs. served."two weeks ago in oregon and two weeks before that in utah, when i go through the line and observe the students, we suggest the school urge them, don't pre-plate the item for the child. hand the trade to the child and

give them a choice as they go through. it is human nature. if i produce it, i'm more likely to consume it. a child, for example, in the case of a piece of fruit, in portland if you're she doesn't want the fruit, we urge schools to have something called a shared table. as i stood in that elementary school in portland oregon, i saw a student put a tangerine or orange on the shared table. two kids beyond him, the next came along and took it, so he had two. there are ways to deal with that, very practical ways. we are very committed to work with students. we announced something about two weeks ago called teen sha -- team share, teaming up to share this practices. we are teaming up schools that are doing this that are extremely successful at it with schools that are struggling at

it. we know that is a solvable issue. host: newmarket, new hampshire. good morning austin. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i have a comment about school lunches. i think they are actually terrible. i am a student at the school and the should really improve their game because most of the kids that are getting their lunches are throwing it away because they don't like it, obviously -- host: what would make it better austin? caller: probably more of a choice, just like he said. probably something that is little bit more on the sweet side for the kids, something that is more -- not just good, because most of the school lunches don't have any type of desert. they give you one choice, which i find it because. -- which i find ludicrous. host: how are you with prison

vegetables? -- fruits and vegetables? caller: well, i.e. most fruits and vegetables given to me by the school lunch but it is pretty terrible, like i said. host: he points to sweets as one way to make school lunches better. how does that sound to your years, kevin concannon? guest: well, a program or diet to consume less sugar -- as americans we consume too much sugar. for young people, again, everything in moderation, as a friend of mine, a cardiologist, recommends to me in the last few days. we would be happy to work with that student's school and the schools in new hampshire as well where they are promoting forreoffered vs. served, but make sure it is attractively presented and that

students are encouraged to try different foods as well. sometimes cravability of certain food types -- a disputed is not familiar with it, they may not realize it is something they would enjoy. host: the school of program faces reauthorization this year. what length of time would go for? guest: typically major pieces of legislation like this are reauthorized for five-year periods. often in the past it drifted over to the sixth year. the farm bill that passed last year was passed a year later than it had been reauthorized on the five-year mark. typically they hold forth for a five-year period. host: senator john hoeven's legislation would allow schools to revert to the 2012 standards, which requires half of all grace served in school lunches to be whole-grain-rich.

the standard now is 100%. it would prevent the usda from sodium reductions in cash further sodium reductions in school meals. --further sodium reductions in school meals. donna in a gusto, an administrator. caller: thank you for letting me speak today. mr. concannon thank you for your support of holding these meal standards. in georgia, in my district things are working beautifully. we offer lots and lots of choices every day and sometimes the kids take up too many fruits and vegetables. we are outsourcing local vegetables from college and sweet potatoes that our kids really, really love, and the fruits are going over tremendously because we are cutting them up and that makes it huge difference. what we see is that the kids don't have enough time to eat. it takes more time to eat fresh fruits and vegetables and we are giving them so many fruits invest vegetables on their tray and that is a big issue nowadays and i'm wondering if mr. concannon can give us any advice

on how we can get administrators to make sure the kids have enough time to eat all this great food on their trays. if you do recess for lunch, the kids come in hungrier and more ready to eat. thank you for your support. i don't know if you have an idea of how we can get administrators to get kids more time to eat because that is what they want. they want more time and all the healthy food and they are eating it. it is taking them all while. -- a while. we make our homemade bread and all that, but a lot of school district don't have kitchens, either -- host: donna, how much time do the kids get in the school? caller: in our district close to 20 to 30 minutes. in a lot of districts they only get 10 minutes to eat lunch, and it really does take more time. we are doing well in our district i hear about other nutrition directors complaining that if the kids had what time to eat, they wouldn't throw the freeway. guest: i think donna makes -- thank you for the call -- she

mentioned several practices that are important. fruits and vegetables, particularly younger children, those children that are consuming the apples that are sliced, for example, for young kids, or the pieces of orange or a tangerine cut up into quarters, it is easier for young kids in particular to consume it that way. the presentation can make a difference. but the point she makes about time is extremely important as well. i've have been to schools, especially large schools, where they may have to start the meal to accommodate 2000 students. the first may come through at 10:30 in the morning and runs until 1:00. and it may be 20 minutes from the classroom to the restroom to lunch back to the classroom, and the time crunch really creates a problem. logistics defined so many things in schools. what we recommend to schools, at

the state, local health departments will allow it, i have watched kids eat the fruit and it takes a few minutes to say that the kid should be allowed to take it with him. there is no federal requirement from the food nutrition service side that the piece of fruit has to be consumed in the cafeteria. there are ways along that line. when she mentioned the practice at some schools, depending on which part of the country you live in, have tried recess first so the kids use of that energy but also racing out the door to be with their friends, and it may give them more time to consume the food. of her idea practices along that line. host: atlanta jermaine. caller: how you doing sir? guest: good morning. host: jermaine, if you could

turn the sound down we will hear you better. caller: what i wanted to ask was if you can try serving orange juice instead of entering it will be a lot more better because the orange juice has a lot more oranges and entries mixed in. -- tangerines mixed in. guest: well -- host: he is speaking to the type of fruit tangerines versus oranges, orange juice. can you speak to the differences in the types of fruit you would advocate be served? guest: well, schools of the kids the best in different time that parts of the country. i have been to the school -- i was at a couple weeks ago in oregon, giving the choice of

both tangerines or small oranges or cranberries dried cranberries in a pack. i have seen variations on that. given the school i was at, the elementary school in maryland, the end of last week, was serving both apples as well as tangerines. i set with some kids for breakfast and they were consuming that apple right down to the core. again, local schools, give choices, that is what we encourage. we have a separate fresh fruits and vegetables program for schools that have high percentages of low income elementary age students. and that special program is targeted at just familiarizing students with fruits and vegetables they might not otherwise get exposed to. host: how does it work these days?

guest: the majority of meals prepared across the country are prepared by staff who work for the school district, but school contract companies have a significant number of schools that they service as well. we heard -- i think donna reference to the fact that in her school system, as is true nationally many more schools are purchasing locally, and we encourage that as well, because typically these are foods that may be fresher kids may be more familiar with them. i remember going to a school a year or so ago in the northeast where the child ahead of me was taking a green vegetable. i said, "what is that you are taking?" he said, "this is kale. we grow it here."

it was a great example. host: mississippi now. marion for kevin concannon of the usda. caller: hello. i am a grandmother with two grandchildren in elementary school i'm extremely satisfied with the lunches. i go several times to have lunch with both of my grandchildren. i watched the agriculture committee with senator cochran this summer when they were having the discussion about the meals, and one thing about these people calling in and being dissatisfied and everything, i don't think their school program has gotten ahead as they should have. mississippi has turned out to be one of the leaders -- guest: yes. caller: in the school planning program. people say they are throwing vegetables away, throwing -- we need more dessert?

i'm looking at our menu for today and they have the grill chicken sandwich, red beans and rice with sausage, southern collard greens, cheese, peaches garlic toast, vanilla pudding chocolate, and white milk. they always have two choices. here we have hamburgers, barbecue chicken. and they don't fry anything -- guest: right. caller: the hamburgers and french fries taste as if you did them in your own home. host: thanks for calling. what does mississippi -- guest: she mentioned senator cochran has been a longtime champion for the school meals programs, but in mississippi, it is also the location at the university of mississippi the national school-food service management institute. this is a very important adjunct, really, a center of support and education that helps

educate school food service folks from across the country. mississippi itself, the state agency in mississippi gets it that it is important for us to promote and support healthy meals, because kids learn better . there's lots of research on that front. especially these days -- i mentioned at the outset, there are 14 million american students who have breakfast at school each day. that alone, as we often hear, is the most important meal of the day, can make a difference. i have heard it from classroom teachers principals, fewer kids missing school days, fewer kids complaining of headaches stomach aches, being disruptive in class, all associated with healthy meals. when she went down that list of today's menu, we encourage schools, by the way, to put their menus on the web so that

parents and grandparents, as he was able to, can take a look at what kids are having that weaker that day. -- that week for that day. i'm confident that the meals provided in schools unquestionably are better than they were years ago and they are getting better. host: mike in oklahoma, you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question deals with screening of foods such as whole grains, particularly gmo grains, herbicides. i'm wondering about how the fda goes about screening those foods. host: thanks mike. guest: well, i'm with the usda, and the safety of school meals is one of the priorities we pay attention to, as does fda. we have a network of notifications that goes out to schools one the purchase for

schools, when there may be an issue with it. we purchase over $1 billion a year -- usda does -- for foods that go out to schools. schools have a choice of about 200 different food items. they can purchase it directly through the usda. we have a notification system of food safety, hazard alert system on that front. but also was a practice -- by the way, you should be aware that schools can purchase and typically purchased 80% of the foods that they serve in schools , they can buy them locally or through national distributors. the one requirement is that the foods have to have been produced in the united states. if we come across an issue, an aleart has been issued -- an al ert has been issued by industry, we pass that along as well.

the state food agencies or the school agriculture department's where they oversee the meals. host: there is a tweet here. "what good is improving the school lunch offerings so long as schools still have vending machines offering soft drinks and junk food?" explain where this country is right now with vending machines. guest: well, you know, it is really some good news and it is a reflection on the ability of american industry to adjust and accommodate. that is why i would be really opposed to enshrining some of these weakenings and federal law. -- in federal law. the schools that have vending machines right now, the food sold must meet the new standards. of the 50 million-plus students to attend schools in the u.s. if those schools have been emissions, which is typically high schools and middle schools

-- some have none, but those that have been our middle and high schools -- the food sold must meet the new diet standards. you're not going to find sugar sweets and beverages in those vending machines. they are verboten. you are going to find products that are -- have been formulated to meet the new dietary standards in terms of the amount of sodium or sugar in the product. the underlying rationale for that is why do we have authority to regulate those foods? in the past they have been referred to as competitive foods, the foods that compete with healthier foods. now if the school has those vending machines, they have to have healthy foods. i was at a school in rural georgia as well as in cincinnati where they used the vending machine for the meals so that the students can punch in their number -- pin number and they get a salad, a healthy sandwich healthy foods.

the vending machine pe rse is -- per se mississippi a vehicle for it, and the vending machine industry has responded very well to say we will provide products that meet those standards. host: and administrator i maine. good morning, judy. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call today. according to the usda guidelines, school-age children should be eating between two to three cups of fruits and vegetables a day. however, studies show that the majority of students are not eating nearly enough fruits and vegetables on a daily basis, especially teenagers. under the new nutrition guidelines, the percentage of students selecting and eating and our expense, fruits and vegetables, have gone up. we are really concerned that the

if the fruits investable's requirement is removed from the school meal pattern, that would be a step backwards for the health of our nation's youth could we thank you for your support of keeping that half a cup of fruits and vegetables in the school meal pattern as a requirement. guest: thank you so much, and i'm very familiar with wyndham. i am from the state of maine. it is one of the growth areas, a very pleasant part of maine to live in, with access to the lakes and close to the mountains as well. the recent study out of the university of connecticut and the previous study out of the harvard school of public health -- i met a young researcher who works with the union of concerned scientists from the university of north carolina who found similar results, that exposing kids to these fruits and vegetables, serving them in ways that different choices and are attractive for them, all pays off.

we want to stay the course, as i say. there is no need to let up on the gas in terms of the efficacy , the benefits of fruits and vegetables to these students. i really appreciate your comments on that, especially as someone who is engaged right on the ground in schools. host: what is the average school lunch cost these days? guest: you know, the average -- we spent nationally in the usda about $11 billion that we reimburse schools in federal funds. we reimburse those meals in three different levels. when we fully pay for the meals or a so-called free meal meaning the child's income or household income is so low they qualify for a free meal, it is just over three dollars. it can vary slightly but it is always at least three dollars. then for the so-called reduced price meals, it is $2.60, and

then we subsidize so-called paid meals both through the usda foods and the cash subsidies of about $.26 or $.27. it is about six cents per meal in that regard. the schools manage this. they have to pay the staff that prepares the meals and they typically have about $1.25 $1.35 for the food product itself. it takes careful purchasing and management. they don't have limitless amounts of money to be sure, but a study done in preparation for the introduction of the act, we made a couple of changes. one, for the first time over and above inflation we added six cents per meal. that is times 30 million meals each day so it as a very quickly. as well as introduce a requirement that when schools

are selling so-called all a cart meals on the side, the actual price of the eloquent has to reflect the costs -- actual price of the all a cart as to reflect the cost because in a number of schools we were subsidizing through the reimbursement the a la carte pricing, and this would have the effect of putting stress on the schools do not have as many resources to buy the healthy foods that kids deserve. host: 10 minutes left. bill is on the line in washington, d.c. it is undermined -- what is on your mind? caller: you guys just talked about the elephant in the room. it is amazing it took this long. you are talking about $1.31 with the extra six cents per meal. that is why school lunches are loaded up with carbohydrates just like foodstamp users because they can't afford to pay for protein, which is more expensive. it is a red herring to hear parents say "oh, our children

don't like this or that." if they don't like this or that, the more well-heeled parents can send their students with their own food. it needs to be repeated that this is $1.31. how much food can you get for $1.31 after you pay for the staff? it is outrageous, and the fact that the republicans are talking about cutting this, they are doing the same thing with food stamps. food stamps got cut twice last year, once with that ridiculous cap and then an additional cut.before you start talking about nutritional standards, let's talk about the elephant in the room. $1.31 for a meal? come on, what can you get for $1.31? host: thanks, bill. kevin concannon. guest: i should remind bill that

the $1.31, or that range, is the typical amount of the food product, the reimbursement for the meal typically runs in excess of three dollars for the fully paid -- the free meal, and $2.60 were in that range -- four in that range for the mill that is subsidized. but the point he is making that it is a challenge to buy healthy foods and stay within budget lines clearly is the case. i know we are very conscious of that. that is why we provided a lot of training, a lot of seminars, a lot of technical support individualized technical support, to school systems across the country to help them make sure they meet the standards but also that we assist them with managing the challenges of operating a program. when i go to the state of texas i often say to students when i meet with them students, uv

lights in texas alone each day 3 million texas students have lunch at schools through the national school lunch program? how many restaurants would it take for us to line up on the interstate here to feed 3 million people within the same hour and a half? it shows the importance of schools and school meals program. we know that these new meal standards are working. we know, as i mentioned earlier we haven't analyzed a single school that might not quite be the area -- analyzed the singles -- penalized a single school that my not be meeting at yet. the administrators who work in those school lines from the so-called lunch ladies and lunch men, are very committed to this, very proud of what they're doing, and we are very supportive of the new standards that have just been announced in

terms of professional standards to recognize the important work that these folks do. host: al in the district of columbia. good morning al. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a social worker, and in the last few years i was assigned to a d.c. public schools high school. there are three different areas i want to touch on. this high school had an evening program for adults where they serve food. i went to a basketball game in the evening, and when those adults were leaving, the leftover food was set at the front counter so that those adults could take the food home. during ther. 876, the notice act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r.

the gentleman is recognized once again. mr. ryan: i already did call it up. and i ask unanimous consent on the five legislative days. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: this is commonsense legislation, the ways and means

committee marked up a couple weeks ago and i want to just commend my colleagues, congressman young from indiana, congressman doggett from texas for their work on this. this is common sense. this tells patients what the rules are so they know what's going to happen when they're in the hospital so they know what kind of billing they'd have. and i'd yield for purpose of describing this legislation, the author of the -- the co-author of the bill, mr. young from yin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for taking up this important legislation today. i thank my colleague from texas, mr. doggett, for his leadership on this issue. when seniors need a hospital stay they're more concerned about their recovery than how the hospital classifies their status as a patient. but when that classification can impact future coverage of health care services related to their recovery they deserve to be made aware of the potential ramifications. this act, the notice act, would

require hospitals to provide meaningful written and oral notification of patients who are in the hospital under observation for more than 24 hours. this mountains would alert the ben fish -- this notice would alert the beneficiary of the medicare patient's admission status and the implications of that status so he or she can advocate on their own behalf while in the hospital. no one should be cut offguard by a large medical bill just because they weren't aware of the status codes or the billing procedures. in a time of sickness and stress, families should focus on the recovery of their loved ones instead of dealing with the hidden costs due to lack of notice. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the bill and would take such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. doggett: the notice act as

the name suggests, is about giving notice and in this case it gives notice to patients when they're abouting to billed personally for perhaps many thousands of dollars because they were characterized as under observation rather than their regular in-patient status and without them even knowing that. i'm pleased to have worked on this legislation since last summer with mr. young. when we originally filed the bill. and i'm appreciative of mr. ryan's prompt consideration of it in our committee. this is a consumer protection bill designed to provide at least limited protection to health care consumers. currently a hospital may either admit a patient as an in-patient or keep them under observation. this category -- this categoryization which might apply for heart mr. murphy:, irregular heartbeat indigestion, other symptoms that might cause a senior or someone with

disability to go to the hospital, it probably makes little or no difference in the way that hospital treats the physical condition, but it can make a very big difference in terms of how the patient's pocketbook is cared for. in deed, the effect of being under observation is that the patient gets stuck with the bill for even skilled nursing home that is required for rehabilitative services after the stay at the hospital. medicare would pay for the needed care if the medicare recipient patient is hospitalized for more than three days as an in-patient but medicare will not pay for skilled nursing home care if someone is simply under observation. since medicare has paid nothing, there is also no gap to be covered by medigap and instead of being in a gap like this, folks are left in really a black hole. a medicare patient sucked in

this hole will be billed for the entire cost of rehabilitation at the nursing home which can run into tens of thousands of dollars. this practice is happening more and more across america, though it is largely unknown to most people until they get caught up in it. in 2012, medicare patients had more than 600,000 observation stays that lasted three days or more. according to one study, over a six-year span the number of stays under observation has increased by 88%. and many medicare patients are being put under observation for a length of time that exceeds the guidelines that have been set by medicare. last year on the "nbc nightly news" kate snow profiled kelly who discovered this costly classification had a big impact on her hospitalized husband. after repeated questioning and demanding to know why her husband was under observation,

she got the hospital to reclassify him and she later learned that had that not occurred, had she not been persistent in standing up for her ill husband, that they would have faced about $22,000 in out-of-pocket rehabilitation bills. last year with so many patients facing insurmountable out-of-pocket costs for skilled nursing care after knowingly being placed under observations, "the new york times" actually ran a piece that was designed to provide guidance to health care consumers about how to get out of this observation category. the first step in that is knowing you're in it and that's what this bill does is to provide for meaningful disclosure. this legislation is endorsed by aarp, by the alliance for retired americans the center for medicare advocacy, the national association of professional geriatric care

professionals, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. and i would ask unanimous consent to place in the record letters from two of those groups in support of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i also appreciate the help we've received for the center for medicare advocacy. they have had reports, again, from people all over the country of being placed in this situation. the -- the hospitals may act in the best interest of a patient's health but not always in the best interest of the patient's pocketbook. the notice act is equipping patients and their loved ones with the knowledge they need to be effective advocates and avoid crippling financial repercussions. with that mr. speaker, i'll reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i

inquire from the gentleman from texas if they have any other speakers because we are prepared to close. mr. doggett: i have one speaker on the way. if you're prepared to close and he is not arriving then we will close. are you -- do you have any other speakers? mr. ryan: no. not on this, i do not. i'll just say a few things. give him 30 seconds. mr. doggett: thank you. mr. ryan: i yield myself such time as i may consume mr. speaker. this is basically common sense. what is happening people on medicare going to the hospital they don't know what their status is whether they're considered in-patient or outpatient. as far as they're concerned it's the same thing. problem is they're being declared one or the other, unbeknownst to them and that has a huge difference in the billing that they receive. and so what this bill simply says is you will know your status so you can make an informed decision as a patient in the hospital because there are huge financial implications to that status.

this is very simple. it's good government. i see the gentleman has the speaker here so i'll reserve the balance of my time. mr. doggett: indeed he has. thank you, mr. chairman, for your courtesy. i yield myself 15 seconds and will welcome my colleague, joe courtney, who has long sought to respond legislatively to protect commarke consumers from the financial pain -- consumers from the financial pain. while the advantage of the notice act is an important stip, representative courtney has an improving access to medicare coverage act, that would treat observation stays the same as in-patient stays. i support his legislation as he has supported from the beginning this initiative and i appreciate his leadership and yield to him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you mr. speaker. and i want to first of all salute congressman doggett for his effort in terms of bringing this legislation forward. as the chairman of the committee said this is really about giving patients the fighting chance to challenge

this coding change that happens while people are in the hospital and have absolutely no idea that they're not being treated as part of in-patient. being coded as observation may sound extremely arcane. what that means is at a time of discharge, if a patient is medically prescribed to go to a nursing home for rehab care for a broken bone or for home health services for a heart condition, they are not covered by medicare if they're in the observation bucket as opposed to the in-patient bucket. and the inspector general's office for medicare issued a report in 2012 that 600,000 patients across the country with long-stay hospital visits over three days fell into this black hole, this no man's land where again, their doctors are telling them they need to have rehab services so people can

walk again and deal with activities of daily living. but the price for doing that, because you're on observation status, can be tens of thousands of dollars, which is where long-term care facilities, nursing home coverage for private pay patients, out-of-pocket patients exists today. this bill at least gives patients the opportunity to challenge that decision. but the fact of the matter is is what we need to do is restore the three-day rule which is in statute. it has been there since 1965. observation status is something new within the last 10 years, and what we need to do as a congress is to restore that three-day rule which says to a patient, you know what, if you're coded observation or if you're coded in-patient it should not interfere with your medically prescribed course of treatment at the time that you're discharged from a hospital. and that unfortunately is not going to be fixed as a result of this legislation, but we should build on this

legislation and, again, restore medicare's promise which again from day one has said that medically prescribed care will be covered by the system at time of discharge from a hospital for longer than three days. the horror stories of people who in some instances were in hospital nor nine days broken bones -- for nine days, broken bones, broken bone broken hips, to be admitted to a nursing home, again 600,000 cases in 2012. so again, we need to build on this legislation but fundamentally we need to restore the three-day rule which has been in statute since 1965. we will be introducing that legislation later this week. it will be a bipartisan bill. again, we think we can withstand the test of any pay-fors to -- that allows the medicare's system to stay in a stable condition. we should pass this legislation today. i want to salute the member from texas for his leadership on this issue. with that i yield back. mr. doggett: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut yields back the balance of his time. mr. doggett: i thank the

gentleman from connecticut and concur and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. so the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i agree, mr. speaker and i yield back as well. the speaker pro tempore: all time having now expired on this bill, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 876, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. . mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favoring of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. .

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 874. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 284, a bill to amend title 18 of the social security act to require state licensure and bid surety bonds for entities submitting bids under the medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies, dmepos, competitive acquisition program and for other purposes. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan and the gentlewoman from california ms. linda sanchez, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 284, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield

myself such time as i may consume. i simply want to, again, mr. ryan: i commend our committee to work on fixing the problem. i want to specifically highlight mr. tiberi, a senior member of our committee along with mr. larson, a senior member of the committee from the democratic side of the aisle for working together to fix a very deep flaw in a competitive bidding system that needs a lot of work to be improved. i would like toll yield such time as he may consume for the purposes of describing and explaining the need for this legislation, mr. tiberi from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for such time as may consume. mr. tiberi: thank you for your support. i introduced this with my friend and colleague from connecticut.

the bill does fix a fundamental law in durable medical equipment competitive bidding program by requiring that bids be binding. it will promote fair competition. more importantly protect our seniors and support small businesses. it includes items like home oxygen, blood sugar monitors and walkers for seniors. the program was intended to reduce out of pocket costs for these seniors. however over the last several years, it has become very clear mr. speaker, that the bidding process is extremely flawed. in large part because the bids are not binding. this encourages low-ball bidding or suicide bidding which artificially drives down prices and will lead to market failure because there is no performance in many of these bids, meaning seniors don't get their equipment. i heard from seniors beneficiaries, small business

suppliers in my state of ohio, that the program is impeding access to needed items for seniors like the ones i just described and ultimately harming their help and making costs more expensive for our seniors and the program itself. this is absolutely unacceptable. the goal of the bill is to reduce the number of bad actors who are now participating in the program by imposing a penalty if the supplier who wins the bid doesn't accept the contract to which they won the bid. the bill will help ensure these suppliers who submit bills in good faith create more certainty for these suppliers and more importantly make sure that seniors get the supplies and equipment and they need and qualify for and increases access to more quality and services at the end of the process. if the bill is signed into law, seniors across the country will no longer have to worry about the company in their area will

provide the information and more importantly the equipment to which they bid on and they will be able to provide that wheelchair, that walker, that oxygen tank that that senior so desperately needs. as the chairman of the ways and means committee mentioned the bill has bipartisan support. it is a commonsense bill that passed the committee unanimously and scored by the congressional budget office to save taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years. i encourage my colleagues to support the bill and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: i would like to speak on the bill. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sanchez: i know this legislation has been in the works by representative tiberi and my good friend from the

state of connecticut. he could not be here due to unforeseen so i'm a poor fill-in. the bill is a commonsense one. the durable medical equipment competitive bidding program has reduced overpayments to d.m.e. providers and it would result in a $42 billion savings over a 10-year period with $26 billion for the federal government and more than $17 billion in savings in occupy costs for beneficiaries -- in out of pocket costs. this legislation was interviewsed into the ways and means committee by representatives tiberi and larson. and what this legislation would do is require bonds for companies who wish to participate in the program. the ways and means committee did pass this bill out of the committee on a unanimous voice vote and i as well supported its passage.

i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 284 as a solution that will save money in the long run and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: the gentlelady understates the point. she is a perfectly fine fill-in for mr. larson. i wanted to congratulate my colleagues in the committee for seeing a problem and rushing to fix this problem. this is what we are supposed to do here. we are making sure that senior citizens have access to the highest quality, lowest priced, durable medical equipment and there is a flaw in the law how that is being done and this bill rectifies that. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired on this bill the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 284 as amended. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1191, the protecting volunteer firefighters and emergency responders act as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1191, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin and the the gentlewoman from california each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous

consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1191. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: this is a very commonsense bill aimed at protecting our volunteer firefighters across america. i want to congratulate the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barr leta, for bringing this issue to our attention. a former mayor, who is very familiar with and explaining the need for this legislation, i would like to yield whatever time he may need to consume to explain his bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barletta: i rise in support of my bill, protecting volunteer firefighters and emergency responders act. i had hoped by now we would not have to be on the floor of this body talking about my legislation once again. this is the third time i have brought this bill to the floor

of the house. it is intended to protect volunteer firefighters and emergency service personnel from obamacare. the first two times i introduced it, it passed the house by a combined vote of 811-0. i know that there are very few pieces of legislation that attracts such amazing bipartisan support. and for that, i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. today, i come asking for your support again. let me tell you why this bill is necessary. in 2013, a firefighter from back home approached me at a parade in mechanicsburg pennsylvania and told me about a serious problem regarding volunteer firefighters and affordable care act. because the internal revenue service specifically considered volunteer firefighters employees for federal tax purposes there

was the fear that they would fall under the employer mandate of the a.c.a. if volunteer fire companies were subject to the employer mandate they could be liable for crippling new health care costs. mr. speaker, as we all know the threshold for the employer mandate is 50 employees. that raised the question of how volunteer firefighters would be counted. would they be counted as employees just under the fire company or counted as municipal employees? if that were the case many volunteer fire companies could achieve 50 employees. if they did, they could be forced to pay health nurns costs for their volunteers or pay a fine. this is very important in my home state of pennsylvania. 97% of our fire companies depend on mostly or entirely on volunteers and across the country, 87% of fire companies

depend on volunteers. now, as a former mayor i can tell you that vol untire firefighters are part of the essential fabric of our communities. these are people who risk their lives every day to protect their friends, families and people they don't even know. and i can tell you that no one becomes a volunteer firefighter because they want health insurance. and while they are on duty, they are covered by workmen's compensation insurance. our volunteer firefighters have a hard enough time raising money for basic equipment and cannot pay for health insurance or pay a fine on it. last year, the i.r.s. decided after months from pressure from this house from firefighters and the media, that they will not consider volunteer firefighters as employees for federal tax

purposes. but but i don't think we should public safety in the hands of the bureaucrats. our volunteer emergency personnel deserve certainty. as i said, this is the third time we have had this bill before this body. the first time in 2014 it passed the house of representatives 410-0. when it got to the senate they used it to attach unrelated language about emergency unemployment insurance. the bill died. the second time, just earlier this year, it passed the house of representatives, 401-0. this time, the senate stripped all of my language out of the bill, it got turned into a one-week funding measure for the department of homeland security. this is a bill that deserves to become law. this legislation has the strong support of the national volunteer fire council, the international association of fire chiefs and the congressional fire services institute. i appreciate their support and

the work of all the men and women they represent, who protect us every day in our hometowns. we all agree that public safety is too important of an issue to play politics with. mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill, and i ask all members to vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: i wish to speak on the bill and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. sanchez: i'm hartened that my republican colleagues are acting on legislation to improve the affordable care act rather than to repeal it. technical corrections have long been part of the legislative process for such fundamental pieces of legislation and this bill does the same. volunteer first responders are critical to the safety and security of communities across the country. 70% of all firefighters across the country are volunteers and for the communities aided by

volunteer first responders, the services donated annually by these volunteers are estimated to be worth more than $140 billion. this legislation allows communities to continue to benefit for the time and commitment of our firefighters and other first responders. treasury has responded to the concerns that mr. barr leta and many other members raised through the final legislation but this makes permanent the reasonable solutions that the administration put forward. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the department of the treasury outlining the regulations that address those concerns. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . ms. sanchez: this ms. sanchez: it codifies a regulation that has been administered by the administration. i ask my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the