mr. veasey who will also speak in opposition. mr. veasey? >> gentleman's recognized. >> mr.hairman, thank you very much. first of all, i want to thank ms. duckworth for her thoughtfulness on this issue and also for her support of the f-35. but i have to disagree with this amendment, because i believe that it would create a serious gap in the production line at a time when we should be ramping up production. i'm also worried about some to have outdating, outdated testing figures and some of the liberties that are taken in addressing the routine development problems that i feel are already being addressed on this program. also worried about the uncertainty and the cost to the f-35 program by delaying it for a year and obligating funds for 29 dod aircraft and then 19 additional allied partner aircraft. and worried about a significant slowdown in production in regards to that. and also the long-term costs of this critical aircraft system to increase and threaten the international partnerships that are in place. and very concerned about that component also. and so i do want to ur

mr. veasey who will also speak in opposition. >> gentleman's recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. first of all, i want to thank ms. duckworth for her thoughtfulness on this issue and also for her sport of the f-35. but i have to disagree with this amendment because i believe that it would create a serious gap in the production line at a time when we should be ramping up production. i also worry about some of the outdated testing figures and some of the liberties that are taken in addressing the routine development problems that i feel were already being addressed on this program. also worried about the uncertainty and the cost to the f-35 program by delaying it for at least a year and obligating funds for 29 dod aircraft and then 19 additional allied partner aircraft. and worried about a significant slowdown in production in many regards to that -- in regards to that, and also the long-term costs of this critical aircraft system to increase in international partnerships that are in place and very concerned about that component also. and so i do want

mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i stand here disappointed in the house of representatives. i was prepared to vote and support of the homeland security appropriations bill for the upcoming year, a bill that is supposed to ensure our local law enforcement, anti-terrorism experts and border security professionals, have the resources they need to keep our country safe. instead, we saw a bipartisan and widely agreed upon bill that would fund homeland security efforts across the nation be overtaken by a violently controversial amendment from the gentleman from iowa that was included in the final passage of the bill. the last-minute amendment goes beyond the pale of discrimination to prohibiting funding the action plan that will affect dreamers from deportation. this endangers over 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who have no home other than the u.s. and only want a fair shot of education and the opportunity to pursue their passions out of the shadows. i voted against final passage of the homeland security appropriations bill because this amendment was allowed to be passed by

mr. veasey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i'm proud today to stand with my colleagues, congresswoman gabbard and mr. benishek to include the military justice improvement act of 2013 in the national defense authorization act and i reject that this rule for this bill did not allow it. the military justice improvement act will reform the military legal procedure for handling sexual assault cases by giving a military attorney outside the victim's chain of command the ability to initiate legal proceedings. this is a fundamental change from currently requiring a sexual assault victim to first turn their -- to their commanding officer to investigate and decide how to advance the case. as a member of the house armed services committee, i'm proud to support this bill that will decrease the occurrence of sexual assault within our military ranks. the current state of 26,000 reported sexual assault incidents in 2012 is completely unacceptable. this amendment will strengthen initiatives already in the defense bill that aim to red

mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak against the cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the farm bill on this juneteenth, 2013. as the nation's most important anti-hunger program, snap offers nutrition assistance to 46 million low-income americans and provides economic benefits to communities. snap also allows families to more easily set aside a portion of their resources for food and to prioritize a healthier, more consistent diet without compromising on obligations such as rent, utilities and transportation. the proposed farm bill would cut $20.5 billion from the snap program and leave over 66,000 texans without any assistance. we cannot allow the budget to be balanced on the backs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our country. i did the snap challenge. i lived on $4.50 for one day and i can tell you that it's not easy. especially if you're trying to eat healthy. we need to find ways to fund federally funded nutrition intendtific programs that will help hardworking

mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me make it clear. i know that the supreme court has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said. this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country. like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have

mr. veasey: for too long we have seen the health care choices of women taken over by male politicians who are more concerned with advancing an ideology than advancing women's health. instead of listening to women, male dominance in these health care decisions have drowned out the most important voice of all, these women who face these reproductive choices. i believe these choices are deeply personal in nature and rest with the woman alone. i think we should provide support and counseling and the not limit ey need, them. senator davis fought hard and fought back against any efforts to greatry -- greatly reduce and restrict any limit to women's health care and she won. thank you fur your grages fight and well-deserved victory. our fight to protect women's health care is not over and i look forward to fighting with you a strong texas woman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr

mr. veasey: . speaker, i rise today to call my colleagues to action. they ruled the current formula is outdated. moments later, one prominent texas leader said they'll move immediately to reinstate the voter i.d. laws passed in 2011. mr. speaker new york 2011, the justice department objected to texas' voter i.d. law because the state's own data indicated that the law would have a detrimental impact on minority voters, the poor, and the elderly. why in the world would a state as great as texas want to implement a law that its own data said would hurt the very citizens in its own state. for this very reason, me and six other plaintiffs have filed suit in federal court to bar enforcement of texas' discriminatory voter i.d. law. the lawsuit in place is to ensure we do not disenfranchise voters and to protect the constitutional right of all americans. i refuse to allow texas or any other state to replicate laws that constrict our american values. i firmly stand here as proof that texans and americans need a voice. i call upon my colleagues to work together

mr. veasey: there's also a monument honoring public safety officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. i attended the dedication for the ceremony on memorial day and i can personally attest to the fact that it truly hon norse veterans of forest hill and the surrounding communities across the united states. i commend forest hill elected officials who worked tirelessly to bring such a park to the north texas community. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? the gentlelady is the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight the terrible consequences obamacare is having on working families. in my district, zionsville community school corporation, was forced to cut hours for substitute teachers, instructal adisance and other staff because of the employer mandate. mrs. brooks : one of the administrator who just cut coaches, aids, and assistants asked did they really think about the seventh and eighth grade basketball

mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me make it clear. know that the supreme court has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said. this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country. like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have c

mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me make it clear. i know that the supreme court has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said. this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country. like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have

mrs. robie -- aye. -- aye.ks veasey -- aye. mr. nugent -- aye. mr. cook -- aye. mr. wenstrup -- aye. mr. jones, mr. jones. >> the bill passed, right? >> that is correct, sir. >> the motion is agreed to. it is laid upon the table. for what purposes the gentleman from washington seek recognition. >> i would like to assert the right of any member to file an alert for inclusion into the house on the bill just ordered reported. >> pursuant to clause 2l, all members are committed to not less than two calendar days. fork unanimous consent clerical changes be removed from the bill on provisions that would cause the beer bill -- bill or end in an earmark. i ask unanimous consent that the chairman the authorized to make such notions as are to go to conference with us. without objection, so ordered. finally, i would like to thank the council team who worked so tirelessly on drafting this mark. who areof our staff standing here with amazement on their faces wondering how we beat 3:00. [laughter] thank you all very very much. .> no further business the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performe