Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1911, the Senate bill called the ``Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act''. While some argue the bill is better than the bill the House passed earlier this year, this bill fails to guarantee that students can have affordable loans to go to college. It fails to take interest rates on college loans as low as we could or should, and it allows the rates to grow to truly unacceptable levels.

Wall Street, whose reckless policies caused the greatest fiscal crisis since the Depression, is able to borrow money at 0.75 percent interest, yet under this bill, students will have to pay far more than that to borrow for their studies. Proponents of this bill claim that they are lowering interest rates for students, although they do not lower them as low as the rate we set several years ago and that was in effect until last month. Worse, the bill allows rates to go far higher than the already very high rates that began in July. Why? Why should students pay interest eight, nine, ten times higher than the rate that Wall Street pays. This bill will have some students paying interest rates as high as ten and a quarter percent. Ten and a quarter percent! Maybe not this year, but in future years. Ten and a quarter percent!

This is a very serious issue for our overall economic health. Student loan debt now stands at over $1 trillion. It is the second highest debt in the nation, only mortgage debt is higher. Furthermore, to help our economy grow we should be encouraging motivated, prepared students to go to college, not making it more expensive and inaccessible for them. The New York Federal Reserve has noted that the tremendous burden of student debt is slowing the economy. People strapped with debt cannot buy a house, they cannot spend money to improve our economy, and they cannot make strides to further improve their quality of life.

The authors of the legislation passed earlier this year and of this bill are stuck on the idea of trying to balance the budget on the backs of students and recent students. Why should they have to pay to restore the economy? They are not in a good financial position to pay for the misdeeds of Wall Street. Why shouldn't those made wealthy by Wall Street's misdeeds pay; they can afford it. In the past year, the federal government has already made more than $50 billion dollars in profit off student loan interest. Why should we continue to squeeze more revenue for the government out of students and former students?

Senator Elizabeth Warren has it right. Her plan would allow students to borrow at the same rate Wall Street does, the discount rate, the low rate that banks pay. Why should Wall Street get to borrow money at the lowest interest rate while college students pay more? They shouldn't. We will saddle with heavy debt the very people we want to go out and build businesses and raise families and work toward the American Dream.

This debate comes down to an important question of domestic policy and priorities. How important is it to us as a country to make college accessible for students so they can improve their lives and improve our country? We do it by making college more affordable--through increasing Pell Grants, by allowing students to borrow money at the same rates that Wall Street banks pay. We do it by not taking money from students to pay for the mess that Wall Street caused in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes during this week:

On rollcall vote No. 419, On agreeing to the Gallego Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 420, On agreeing to the Young Amendment H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 421, On the Grayson Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 422, On the McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 423, On the Hastings of Florida Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 424, On the Second Hastings of Florida Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 425, On the Third Hastings of Florida Amendment to H.R. 2610, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 426, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1911, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 427, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 850, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 428, On the Waxman Amendment to H.R. 1582, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 429, On the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 1582, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 430, On the Murphy of Pennsylvania Amendment to H.R. 1582, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 431, On the Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1582, I would have vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 432, On Passage of H.R. 1582, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 433, On Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 322, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 434, On Agreeing to H. Res. 322, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 435, On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1897, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 436, On Passage of H.R. 2879, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 437, On the Scalise Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 438, On the Smith of Missouri Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 439, On the Latham Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have noted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 440, On the Nadler Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 441, On the Johnson of Georgia Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 442, On the Jackson-Lee Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 443, On the Moore Amendment to H.R. 367, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 444, On the Motion to Recommit H.R. 367, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 445, On Passage of H.R. 367, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 446, On Passage of H.R. 2009, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for making small changes to this legislation to address concerns that I raised about this bill last year. However, the premise of the bill remains the same and for that reason, I oppose H.R. 313, the so-called ``Government Spending Accountability Act''. H.R. 313 is fundamentally flawed because it would make significant changes to federal employees' ability to travel to conferences and meetings.

This bill institutes prohibitions and impediments that would hinder American scientists' ability to collaborate and communicate with scientists at other institutions and laboratories.

Although I appreciate the sponsors' efforts to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, I'm not sure they realize the impact that this legislation would have on science and technology, which is the engine of American innovation. The informal conversations, as well as the formal presentations and everything else that goes on between scientists from different institutions, from different countries, lead to new collaborations that have the promise of new discoveries. These are not fancy junkets.

Scientific conferences are critically important. For example, the American Chemical Society and, the American Physical Society have stated that the development of an anticancer drug was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists from three laboratories that took place at one of these conferences. This bill would hinder that kind of collaboration. In a time when the federal government should be making science a priority, passing a bill that would make scientists jump through hurdles and get around impediments would, in fact, weaken American scientists, weaken American science, and impede the ability of American scientists to innovate.

That is not wise. This is not the way to build our economy and to foster advancements in innovation. We should be investing more in research and development, which means, of course, investing in scientists, but also investing in their ability to pursue science.

Would Congress do better if we did not meet in person, if we stayed home and got on conference calls every once in a while? I don't think so. I think the gains that are made in good legislation that come from conferences, from working together as colleagues as we gather for votes, or in committees, are invaluable. The same can be said for scientific conferences--better innovation can occur when scientists meet together, face-to-face.

Mr. Speaker, I am a co-sponsor of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it today.

It is clear that the current regime in Iran poses troubling security challenges to the world community and our allies in the Middle East. The hateful and threatening comments made by the President of Iran against Israel cannot be tolerated. Further, the provocative actions taken by Iran to further their nuclear weapons program must be stopped. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and threaten the United States and our allies. Iran must alter its dangerous course, and the United States needs to be fully involved to help bring this about.

I continue to support the Obama Administration's actions to seek a diplomatic solution to Iran's unnecessary and unwise pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. However, despite having imposed some of the most stringent sanctions on Iran ever, the United States and our international partners have thus far been unable to compel Iran to abandon its quest for a nuclear weapon. Accordingly, the House has no choice but to pass H.R. 850.

This bill would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, impose sanctions on specific Iranian officials (i.e., the Supreme Leader, Guardians Council, MOIS, Quds Force, etc.), and tie additional sanctions to human rights abuses. I regret that the failure of Iran's government to change its course makes this bill necessary, as many ordinary Iranians have already suffered much as a result of the existing sanctions. We all want to see the people of Iran freed from the tyranny and oppression of the current clerical regime, but above all our greatest obligation is to prevent Iran from building and fielding nuclear weapons. This bill, if enacted into law, will hopefully bring us one step closer to that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes during this week:

On rollcall vote 375, on Passage of H.R. 1542, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 376, on Passage of H. Con. Res. 44, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 377, on Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 312, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 378, on Agreeing to H. Res. 312, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 379, Gabbard amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 380, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 381, Polis amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 382, Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 383, Nugent amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 384, Nadler amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 385, Moran amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 386, Poe amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 387, Walberg amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 388, Cicilline amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 389, Cohen amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 390, Coffman amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 391, Garamendi amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 392, Fleming amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 393, Rigell amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 394, Flores amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote 395, DeLauro amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 396, Lee amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 397, Quigley amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 398, Denham amendment to H.R. 2397, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 415, on agreeing to the Waxman amendment, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 416, on agreeing to the Tonko amendment, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 417, on Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2218, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 418, on Passage of H.R. 2218, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes during this week:

On rollcall vote 354, on the passage of H.R. 2576, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 355, on the passage of H.R. 1848, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 356, on the passage of H.R. 2611, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 357, ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 300, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 358, on the passage of H. Res. 300, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 359, on the Motion to Adjourn, I voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 360, on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 2667, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 361, on passage of H.R. 2667, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 362, on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 2668, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 363, on passage of H.R. 2668, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 364, on ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 303, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 365, on passage of H.Res. 303, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 366, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 367, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 368, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote 369, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Miller's substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill.

We must never forget that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is rooted in the civil rights movement. Since 1965, the role of Federal involvement in the schools has been to eliminate inequality in education, not just

provide additional funds for schools to use as they please.

This bill is not a thoughtful response to the concerns of parents, students, teachers, and school officials. It takes several steps backwards. It reduces our investment in education. It would lock in the sequester spending cuts. It treats professional development as an afterthought. It would eliminate Federal investment in science and math education. Yes, the Republican bill does mention science, but the proposal does nothing to tie high accountability measures to science assessments.

A real proposal would not foster an expectation that a lack of improvement is acceptable; a real proposal would have wraparound services; a real proposal would not abandon students with disabilities; a real proposal would not consider professional development as a mere afterthought. We should be considering a proposal that recognizes that Federal investment and high standards in science and other areas, as well as literacy and foreign language development, are critical components to the high-quality education that every student deserves.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5.

We must never forget that ESEA is rooted in the Civil Rights movement. Since 1965, the role of federal involvement in schools has been to close the skills gap and eliminate inequality in education, not just provide additional funds for schools to use as they please.

I agree with the basic principles of ESEA, but I believe that the law needs reforming. While No Child Left Behind was presented as the means to close the achievement gap between students in good schools and those in underperforming schools, it has not done that.

Unfortunately, the bill presented by the majority is deeply inadequate. It falls short of setting standards and support for the high quality education our students deserve. This bill was not a thoughtful response to the concerns of parents, students, teachers and school officials.

In fact, this bill takes several steps backwards. First, it reduces our investment in education. The underlying bill proposes to eliminate all Maintenance of Effort requirements, which would allow states and school districts to set their own funding levels and begin a race to the bottom. Furthermore, it would lock in the sequester spending cuts. I have yet to meet with any educator or parent who approves of the current sequester cuts to education.

Additionally, this bill treats Professional Development as an afterthought. Helping our teachers hone their schools and develop deep knowledge in their subject areas is critical to our students making progress in the classroom. Yet, the underlying bill does nothing to provide for a real investment in the professional development of teachers. Instead, it requires states and school districts to develop personnel policy through teacher evaluations that are inherently incomplete.

Furthermore, this bill would dismantle federal investment in STEM Education. While this Republicans bill does not mention Science, the proposal does nothing to tie high accountability measures to science assessments. Furthermore, the underlying bill would eliminate the largest and most successful STEM education program, the Math and Science Partnership. This proposal does not include any support for the recruitment and training of STEM teachers.

Passing this bill would mean abdicating our civil rights responsibilities to ensure that all children have access to a quality education.

Rather than voting on this deeply partisan bill, we should be considering a reauthorization proposal that fixes the problems that we know exist. A real proposal would not foster an expectation that lack of improvement is acceptable; a real proposal would not abandon students with disabilities; or a real proposal would not consider professional development a mere afterthought.

Instead, we should be considering a proposal that recognizes that federal investment and high standards in science and STEM fields, as well as literacy, and foreign language development are critical components to the high quality education that every student deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I have recently cosponsored H.R. 1565. I understand and laud the very good intentions of the bill's sponsors. However, the reality is that as written this legislation would, if enacted, have the effect of making it impossible for the federal government to do what New Jersey has done: require handgun licensing and registration. In New Jersey we have lived comfortably and safely for many years with such laws, and I believe New Jersey's approach should be extended to the federal level. It is my hope that should H.R. 1565 be considered that I and other Members will have the chance to amend it so as to not preclude a national licensing & registration regime.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 8, I was not present for Recorded Votes under a suspension of the rules. Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

``No'' on rollcall vote 305 on motion to suspend the rules and pass

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Oregon.

Each summer as Americans rush to our beaches for fun and relaxation, the majority of the Republicans here in the House rush forward with ill-conceived legislation to open up those same beaches and coastlines to unsafe drilling. Today we have a bill that has been accelerated through the legislative process and has been drafted in a way that limits the opportunity for Members representing coastal States to protect shorelines and coastal economies.

The bill we're considering would allow Big Oil to put drilling rigs off the Atlantic, Pacific and Alaskan coasts

without enacting key drilling safety reforms that we know should be there following the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. This is bad policy through a bad process, all so this bill can enjoy the same fate that so many irresponsible drilling bills that the majority has rammed through have experienced.

They put these bills forward in apparent ignorance that a law requires passage by both houses and signature by the President. The administration was never given an opportunity to testify on this legislation, and now the President has suggested that he would veto this bill if it ever made it to his desk.

In committee markup, I offered an amendment to protect the Atlantic coastal communities, including my home State of New Jersey, which is strongly opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast. The amendment was rejected on a party-line vote.

Need I remind my colleagues that about 70 million people live in Atlantic coastal regions. And according to NOAA data, Atlantic commercial fisheries were valued at $1.8 billion in 2011, and the New Jersey Travel Industry Association says New Jersey's travel and tourism is worth about $38 billion a year, supporting more than 500,000 jobs. All this depends on the pristine conditions of our beaches and shoreline.

But this isn't just about what New Jersey wants. Energy development of the OCS is a Federal issue. And as we learned during the debate on my amendment, any oil spill off the coast of, let's say, Virginia, will drift quickly to the coast of New Jersey and other northeastern States.

I submitted an amendment this week, but it was ruled not in order. The Rules Committee seems to think it's strange to want to collect fees--rent on drilling plots that belong to the public. Fees should be collected on all leases, producing or not. I think it's worth noting that according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as of June of this year, there were more than 30 million acres of non-producing leases, five times more than the 5.6 million leased acres where oil production is currently occurring. Oil and gas doesn't need more acreage to drill on. They need to drill on the leases they currently hold.

In addition to these leases, we're considering this bill on the heels of the President's speech announcing his plan to reduce carbon pollution and to mitigate the threats of global climate change.

I realize the authors of this bill don't put much stock in what the President had to say the other day. But as elected representatives, we have a moral obligation to act. As the climate changes, there will be stronger superstorms, worse floods, more withering droughts, more intense wildfires. The science is overwhelming, but many of my colleagues in Congress would prefer to deepen our dependence on fossil fuels.

We're considering this bill at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and it's the wrong bill. The crisis is not waning. The crisis of climate change is real. President Obama is doing all he can administratively while Congress fiddles. It is no coincidence that as Democrats work to address climate change, Republicans in the House recklessly pursue a ``drill, baby, drill'' agenda.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Lucas (R- OK) and Ranking Member Peterson (D-MN) to craft this year's farm bill. The FARRM Act makes many several necessary reforms to our county's agricultural policy. The bill encourages organic agriculture, promotes specialty crops, such as fruits and vegetables, and ends direct commodity payments to farmers in favor of a more robust crop insurance program.

I support many of these reforms, but the bill that was considered in the House this week could have been much better. The FARRM Act cut conservation programs designed to reward farmers for protecting drinking water and land and reduced acreage enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The bill failed to place caps on the taxpayer's share of crop insurance premiums and increased price guarantees for many major crops. Additionally, the bill contained a provision added by amendment in the Committee that would have prevented states from setting their own farm and food standards.

But the most outstanding issue with the FARRM Act is by far the $20.5 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. At a time when a record numbers of families are struggling to put food on the table the House bill would recklessly cleave SNAP resulting in a loss of benefits for more than 2 million low-income individual, working families, children and seniors.

In New Jersey the number of SNAP participants over a 5 year period has more than doubled from only 431,797 participants in March 2008, up to 873,657 participants in March of this year. The Americans who rely on this program are not looking for a handout or trying to game the system, they are individuals and families who have fallen on hard times and need just a little assistance to afford the most basic of needs-- something to eat.

The average weekly SNAP benefit is $31.50 a week or about $4.50 a day. Half of all SNAP beneficiaries are children. 1 in 5 American children live in a food insecure household and 75% of households with food insecure children have one or more adults in the labor force. Overall 76% of SNAP benefits go to households with children, 16% to households with disabled persons, and 9% to households with seniors.

I voted against final passage of the FARRM Act because we must stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class. A $20.5 billion cut in SNAP would harm only poorest families in American and disproportionately affect children, seniors and people with disabilities.

As a country we must end our obsession with debt and deficits, especially when these reductions are coming at the expense of the impoverished and the hungry. We need policies that encourage economic growth which will allow for the creation of more jobs, higher incomes, and increased tax revenues that will in turn contribute to deficit reduction.

There are greater savings possible elsewhere in the farm bill, such as placing caps on insurance premium subsides that enable some of the largest farms to receive millions of taxpayer dollars year-after-year.

Rather than cutting programs that are specifically focused on the hungry and poor, I support policies that will create jobs and improve incomes, allowing in the long-term fewer household to depend on SNAP for their next meal.

Now that the FARRM Act has failed to pass the House by a vote of 195 to 234, it should be clear to the House Majority that members

on both sides of the aisle are opposed to the SNAP cuts in this bill. I encourage my colleagues in Leadership and in the Agriculture Committee to work towards a compromise that would eliminate the SNAP cuts and allow for the passage of a farm bill that supports agriculture without hurting hungry families.

I represent a number of students in universities, students who have been to university, and students who hope to go to university for whom this is very important.

As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I was involved in writing the legislation that resulted in the current lower interest rate. So I take this very personally for all sorts of reasons.

As you point out, there are a number of problems with what is about to happen and what the majority, the Republican Party, is proposing here with adjustable rates that could trap students or former students with unmanageable debt. But what bothers me the most is why they are doing it.

The point is they are trying to raise revenue without appearing to raise taxes. They are unwilling to ask a fair share from people in this economy who are doing well and instead want to turn to students and recent graduates and ask them to balance the budget, to reduce the deficit. That's why the interest rates are going up. It is so that they can collect more money. And they would be collecting it from students, just as you've been discussing. Just the wrong thing to do for an economy that is going to create new jobs, new job entry, create economic growth.

Oh, this is very definitely a revenue-raising measure, because they have this hard-and-fast principle against collecting revenue from people who can afford to pay it and who are doing well.

I thank the gentleman for presenting those numbers, because it's been in the news recently that the immigration bill would actually reduce the deficit. I'm sure a lot of people around the country scratch their head and say, ``How could that be?'' but you've made it quite clear. It actually improves the economy in several different ways, just as making college more affordable improves the economy. The result is we are all more prosperous. The result is the deficit goes down. The result is we all have improved quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during debate of the rule (H. Res. 271) and during consideration of amendments to H.R. 1947, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act and of 2013, I was not able to be present for Recorded Votes. Had I been present during the vote series, I would have voted as follows:

``no'' on rollcall vote 254, On Ordering the Previous

Question;

``no'' on rollcall vote 254, On Agreeing to the Resolution

to provide for consideration of H.R. 1947;

``no'' on rollcall vote 255, On Approving the Journal;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 256, On Amendment No. 1 offered by

Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts to restore the $20.5 billion in

SNAP by offsetting the Farm Risk Management Election Program

and the Supplemental Coverage Option;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 257, On Amendment No. 3 offered by

Ms. Foxx of North Carolina to cap spending on the Farm Risk

Management Election program at 110% of CBO-predicted levels

for the first five years in which payments are distributed;

``no'' on rollcall vote 258, On Amendment No. 5 offered by

Mr. Broun of Georgia to repeal permanent law from the

Agriculture Act of 1949 that pertains to dairy support and to

prevent the currently suspended law from becoming reactivated

should Congress not reauthorize programs under the Department

of Agriculture;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 259, On Amendment No. 8 offered by

Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon to require that twenty percent of

the acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program be

set aside for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

and the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program, which allows

states to target high priority and environmentally sensitive

land and to continually re-enroll that land in CRP;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 260, On Amendment No. 9 by Mr.

Blumenauer of Oregon to reform the Environmental Quality

Incentives Program (EQIP) to increase access for farmers and

to eliminate payments to projects that do not show strong

conservation benefits;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 261, On Amendment No. 14 by Ms.

Kaptur of Ohio to improve federal coordination in addressing

the documented decline of managed and native pollinators and

to promote the long-term viability of honey bees, wild bees,

and other beneficial insects in agriculture;

``yes'' on rollcall vote 262, On Amendment No. 15 offered

by Mr. Royce of California to reform U.S. international food

aid to allow for not more than 45 percent of authorized funds

to be used for assistance other than U.S. agricultural

commodities, yielding $215 million in annual efficiency

savings, enabling the U.S. to reach an additional 4 million

disaster victims. Curtails the practice of ``monetization''

which, according to the GAO, is inefficient and led to a loss

of $219 million over three years. Reductions in mandatory

spending result in $150 million in deficit reduction over the

life of the bill;

``no'' on rollcall vote 263, On Amendment No. 16 offered by

Mr. Chabot of Ohio to repeal section 3102, which reauthorizes

the Market Access Program (MAP) until 2018.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1797, which would violate the constitutional rights of every woman in America.

Why is the majority proposing a bill that treats women as second- class citizens? A female constituent in Trenton wrote to me and asked,

Why is it that any person, feels entitled to make a

personal decision of this magnitude his business? How in any

way is he qualified to make any decisions about my future, my

body, my children? The Congress and Senate are spouting

politics in what is completely personal matters. I do so

heartily wish that Congress would spend our tax dollars on

legitimate affairs of state and country--not affairs that do

not concern them in any way whatsoever.

But we're not spending our time on important issues of state and country, such as fostering job creation or helping middle class families afford college.

Instead, once again, the Majority is asking Congress to play doctor. This bill is an attempt to ban safe, legal, and often medically- necessary abortion services for women. It's unconstitutional, and it is a direct assault on the dignity and independence of each American woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1919, the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013. Currently, there exists a patchwork of state regulations that provide for uneven detection of contaminated drugs and falsified medicines. Recognizing this, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) recommend in a February 2013 report that ``Congress should authorize and fund the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish a mandatory track-and trace system.'' The Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013 makes important progress in providing for a national standard of tracing medicines electronically through the supply chain. We should be doing all that we can to ensure the security and authenticity of all medicines in the United States. The enhanced drug distribution security required by this legislation provides manufacturers with important protections against counterfeit drugs as well as increases patient safety for American consumers.