Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, and President Obama for joining with voices, particularly those of the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, and acknowledging that the United States is comprised of only 5 percent of the world's population, but we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

While the entire U.S. population has increased about one-third over the last 30 years, the Federal prison population has increased at a staggering rate of 800 percent, currently totaling nearly 216,000 inmates and currently operates at a 33 percent overcapacity.

One-half of those Federal prison populations are drug offenses. While some of them are truly dangerous persons, as Deputy Attorney General Cole said, many of them are first-timers, and by possession only, wound up under Federal laws, the crack cocaine laws, in the Federal system.

Today, I stand to support the clemency offering that is being offered by the Department of Justice, as well as to reduce barriers in housing and access to health care.

I ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that we get word out to these individuals and their families to make sure that this clemency works and works in the right way, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the importance of recognizing January as National Mentoring Month. Since 2002, National Mentoring Month has served as an opportunity for our country to reflect on the benefits of youth mentoring and to highlight the positive impact it has on the development of our youth.

The theme of this year's mentoring month is ``Mentoring Works''! It allows us to proudly and openly discuss mentoring as a vital academic and social development strategy for our youth.

The fact is that in many regions mentoring helps young people achieve academic success; it also serves to help young people make responsible decisions for their futures.

According to a recent report released by MENTOR: the National Mentoring Partnership, some of the benefits of mentoring include:

The creation of higher educational goals. It is more likely for a youth with a mentor to attend college than for a youth without a mentor.

Participation in productive and beneficial activities. It is more likely for youth with mentors to engage in leadership positions, extracurricular activities and sports, and community service than youth without mentors.

Another added benefit of mentoring is Upward Mobility. Integrated with other national initiatives, mentoring has the capacity to reduce poverty and increase the economic mobility of young people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3547, the bipartisan ``Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.''

I want to thank Chairman Rodgers and Ranking Member Lowey for their constructive work in fashioning this bipartisan and bicameral legislation to fund the government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2014.

The bill before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class.

As with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I do not.

The bill abides by all the terms set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (the ``Ryan-Murray Agreement''), providing a total of $1.012 trillion for the operation of the federal government, a substantial and necessary increase over the inadequate $968 billion spending limit contained in the House budget resolution which led to the shutdown of the federal government last October.

The bill contains all 12 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014, with no area of the government functioning under a Continuing Resolution, thus allowing every program to be considered on its own merits and prioritized, rather than be subject to arbitrary across the board cuts.

The bill also provides increased funding for several programs that I strongly support. Let me list just a few of the more important ones.

Agriculture and Related Agencies:

$6.7 billion for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), sufficient to meet expected need in 2014.

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:

$17.65 billion for NASA, which is $154.8 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$376 million for Byrne-JAG grants, which is $8.3 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $11 million more than the post-sequester level.

$214 million for the COPS program, which is $4 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $4 million more than the post-sequester level.

$417 million for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs, which is $9.1 more than the 2013 enacted level.

The bill rejects House proposals to prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to challenge state immigration laws; and prohibit grants from being awarded to ``sanctuary'' cities.

Defense:

Multiple provisions focused on eliminating sexual assault in the Department of Defense and supporting victims, including: (1) Fully funds request of $156.5 million for Sexual Assault and Prevention Office (SAPRO) services; (2) $25 million above request to implement a Sexual Assault Special Victims Program; (3) Prohibition on obligation of funds contravening more severe penalties for perpetrators established in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Fully funds Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs and includes $125 million above the request for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Psychological Health research and $4 million above the request for alcohol and substance abuse research.

The final agreement repeals last year's cut to cost of living adjustments for disabled military retirees and survivors.

Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies:

$1.912 billion for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, which is $102 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$5.467 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, which is $495 million more than the 2013 enacted level (excluding emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief).

$1.11 billion for water resources projects within the Department of Interior, which is $46 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

The agreement eliminates the majority of riders proposed in the House bill, including those related to Waters of the United States, guns on Corps lands, Clean Water Act agriculture exemptions and ceiling fan standards.

Financial Services and General Government:

$673.3 million for the District of Columbia, which is roughly equal to the 2013 enacted level.

Homeland Security:

$10.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection, $220.4 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$4.93 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, which is $225.8 million less than the 2013 enacted level.

$923.8 million for Cybersecurity and Communications, an increase of $27.5 million above the 2013 enacted level.

$4.35 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $3.8 million above the 2013 enacted level.

$1.5 billion for State and Local Grants, an increase of $35.4 million above the 2013 enacted level; and

$680 million for Firefighter Grants, an increase of $5.7 million above the 2013 enacted level.

Controversial House riders related to abortion services and immigration enforcement are not included in the bill.

Among the contentious riders dropped was a provision to prohibit ICE from adhering to enforcement guidance, including a June 15, 2012, memo prioritizing enforcement actions against dangerous criminals ahead of DREAM Act children.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:

$3.938 billion for wildland fire, which is $417 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$4.4 billion for the Indian Health Service, which is $78 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

A total of $2.35 billion for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Funds, which is only $4.7 million less than 2013 enacted levels but $119 million more than the post-sequester level.

$2.6 billion for the National Park Service, which is $29 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$146 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is equal to their 2013 enacted levels.

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies:

$8.6 billion for Head Start, which is $612 million more than the 2013 enacted level, sufficient to both fully restore the cuts to Head Start and to invest in the Administration's Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships.

$2.6 billion for job training through WIA Training and Employment Formula Grant program, which is $10 million less than the 2013 enacted level but $121 million more than the post-sequester level.

$815 million for Seniors' Nutrition programs, which is equal to the 2013 enacted level and $46 million more than the post-sequester level, allowing full restoration of meals.

$2.36 billion for Child Care & Development Block Grants, which is $36 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

The agreement abandons the futile but wasteful effort by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and provides the Department of HHS roughly the same amount as it had last year for implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and some additional funds will become available through existing fees on policies sold on the exchanges.

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies:

$63.2 billion in discretionary funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $2.3 billion more than the 2013 enacted level.

$585.6 million for prosthetic research, which is $3.5 million above the 2013 enacted level.

The Omnibus provides new tools and resources to address the backlog of veterans disability claims by increasing personnel, enhancing training and quality oversight, and strengthening accountability.

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies:

The final agreement does not include a policy rider codifying the `Global Gag Rule,' which prohibits non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving federal funds from providing women information about certain health services.

I would have preferred that the bill provide more than $2.67 billion for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, an amount that is $224 million less than the 2013 enacted level. Our diplomats who risk their lives serving in dangerous outposts around the world

deserve all the resources required to keep them safe.

Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:

$600 million for National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER), which is $100 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$17.4 billion for Section 8 Tenant Based Rental Assistance renewals, which is $123 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$9.6 billion for Section 8 Project Based Rental Assistance renewals, which is $596 million more than the 2013 enacted level.

$1 billion for HOME Investment Partnerships, which is equal to the 2013 enacted level.

The bill does not include any funds for high-speed rail. I believe this decision is shortsighted and shortchanges our nation's future. Highspeed rail will save energy, create jobs, and increase our nation's global competitiveness.

As I stated, this bill is not perfect. But on balance it is a significant improvement over the spending bills considered in the House last year and is worthy of our support.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to announce to the House that America has lost one of its greatest voices championing the cause of civil rights, social and economic justice, and peace. Pete Seeger, the legendary folk singer and prolific songwriter, who helped popularize the beloved ``We Shall Overcome'' as the anthem of the Civil Rights Movement, died yesterday in New York City. He was 94 years old.

For more than 60 years, Pete Seeger's was a powerful voice, unafraid of speaking out against what was wrong with our country, while always promoting that people stand up and speak just as fervently for things that are right.

Pete Seeger had a vision of America's potential and that idea flowed through his music to impact so many people in the United States and around the world.

Pete Seeger's humility kept us rooted as a people by reminding us of our common humanity while his songs challenged us to realize the full promise of country. The author of such iconic songs as ``If I Had A Hammer,'' ``Turn, Turn, Turn,'' and ``Where Have All the Flowers Gone?'', Pete Seeger touched chords deep in the American heart and inspired many of the great songwriters of succeeding generations, including Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen.

Mr. Seeger sang about the labor movements of the 1940s and 1950s, confronted with his music the Vietnam War, civil rights and the environment. From roots residing in spirituals, songs like ``We Shall Overcome,'' spoke to activists in the civil rights movements and became a rallying cry for their efforts.

Pete Seeger was elected to the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1972, and in 1993 received a lifetime achievement Grammy Award. In 1994 he received a Kennedy Center Honor and, from President Bill Clinton, the National Medal of Arts, America's highest arts honor, awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996. At the age of 89, Mr. Seeger won a Grammy Award in the children's music category in 2011 for ``Tomorrow's Children,'' and another in 1997, for the traditional folk album ``Pete.''

With Pete Seeger's passing, the nation has lost a great champion for jobs and justice for working people. It is up to us, the living, to carry on the struggle for the causes to which Peter Seeger devoted his life.

I ask a moment of silence in honor of Pete Seeger.

Mr. Speaker, hunger is not an option. And although there were many elements of the farm bill that, over the years, I have supported enthusiastically as a Representative from Texas--and I thank all of those who produce food--it is a question of taking a stand. First, $40 billion, then $11 billion, then $8 billion. It is not an option in terms of the closing off of the opportunity for food stamps.

For those who are working, as Maggie, a young lady in Austin, Texas, and the 48 million women who are living in poverty and the 22 million children living in poverty, I took a stand today, and I am proud of it--not because the work was not there for the farm bill, but we have got to protect those who need us most. Hunger is not an option.

I take this time as well to thank Trudi Terry, my dear friend, for her service to this Nation. She is professional and distinguished. And as we refer to each other on the floor, ``the distinguished gentlelady from Texas,'' ``the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts,'' you are the distinguished gentlelady from Virginia, along with Irene. We thank you for sharing with us.

And I appreciate one thing: thank you for being our friend and my friend. God bless you and continue in prosperity and service. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of the optimism of this Nation and of her people. Frankly, we do live in the greatest Nation in the world. Sometimes we are questioned when we say that, but I say it proudly and with a spirit of humbleness. I know that because on faraway shores and lands there are men and women who wear the uniform proudly.

This morning, in our own House of Representatives, we held a reception for participants of the Wounded Warriors program. These individuals are in a number of Members' offices. Many of us look forward to that opportunity, and they continue to serve.

So I know as President Obama rises tonight to speak to the Nation, he will have a sense of optimism, which I will enjoy and support. He will note, however, that as we are optimistic, we must provide that optimism and economic opportunity for all of our brothers and sisters, citizens and persons, in the United States of America.

It is well known that we have made great strides. We no longer have the horrific mortgage collapse, though we are still working with homeowners. We don't have the debacle on Wall Street because, as Democrats, we worked hard to fix that problem, as Wall Street continues to thrive. Of course, we have taken ourselves out of the doldrums of a deep depression--or recession--in 2008 and 2009 with a powerful stimulus package which today, in Houston, Texas, has seen the retrofit of the Mickey Leland Federal Building. With $90 million, they put people to work fixing a building where citizens come for services.

That is the American way of investing, and not handouts, as has been described by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. When are we going to recognize that the investment in human resources is really the answer?

Thank you, Mr. President, for understanding that.

Theodore Roosevelt said:

The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the

State, because he derives special advantage from the mere

existence of government.

That is true. Wealth inequality must be fixed, and it must be fixed now. In the U.S., income inequality has been rising steadily over the past four decades, reaching levels not seen since the late 1920s.

The President has signed an executive order, which I congratulate him on, understanding that you cannot live on less than $10 an hour. It needs to be more. That is investing in the American way. That is generating the jobs so that individuals can then spend their dollars and then more jobs are created.

So tonight I don't want there to be a retrenching. I don't want us to be overwhelmed with this myth of debt and deficit so much so that we cannot invest in the education of our children and we can't fix the horrible situation of individuals not having access to higher education.

Who in their right mind would continue to allow those who are chronically unemployed and need unemployment insurance to suffer, as they are doing? Who would allow four out of five beneficiaries who have at least one adult that they are taking care of, children that they are taking care of, or multiple adults, who would allow 50 percent of those who have a college education and 36 percent who have a high school education and are not able to get jobs, and not extend the unemployment benefits on an emergency basis? Who would allow the over 9 in 10 that live in households with a total income under $75,000 that need this extension of unemployment benefits so they can pay their rent or mortgage, who would allow such a crisis?

We are doing it right here, and we should be optimistic.

I have introduced legislation to extend unemployment for a whole year. It is an emergency. Then I introduced H.R. 3888, which indicates that those who are on unemployment benefits can get training to redirect their career with a stipend--their unemployment benefits do not cease--so that they can come back to what they want--the very stories that I listened to as I went to career recovery and resources fairs.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I will be optimistic. I will be optimistic for Maggie, a 25-year-old Army veteran who has to get food stamps. She makes $10 an hour, 6 days a week, in order to save for paramedic training. She is the very example of someone that we can provide that training for so she can invest in the community, even though she tried nursing but did not have the money to finish. Or, maybe I can speak of Ms. Aguilar, who lives in my State of Texas, which refuses to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Where is the optimism, Mr. Speaker?

So tonight, Mr. President, you do what is necessary for the optimism of this Nation. It is the greatest Nation in the world. We will stand with you as you invest in human resources, create jobs, provide unemployment extension, and raise the minimum wage to cure wealth inequality.

Madam Speaker, the President is going to address this House and this country with great enthusiasm about the work that he has done with his Cabinet, Democratic Members of Congress, and others who have worked with him to make America better.

He will able to report that 3 million Americans have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, giving suffering Americans with preexisting conditions the opportunity for good health care. He will able to acknowledge that people like Mrs. Aguilar would be better off if States like Texas would have expanded the Medicare coverage. Her children are covered, but she is not. We are committed to working to make sure that that happens.

He will be able to say that he stands on the side of extending the unemployment for working Americans--those who have worked and now are unemployed, and yes, he will be able to say that it is important that we invest in the infrastructure.

It is important to note that America is great, as we watch our soldiers in foreign lands wearing the uniform with pride.

We must invest in the American people. Food stamps, which are now given mostly to working Americans, are an investment, and the President can be optimistic and work for all of America.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

Madam Speaker, our leader is right. Our message today should be to be able to help the chronically and unemployed individuals who have worked and are now in need of an extension of the unemployment benefits.

Instead, today, as we pass H.R. 7, we will be making a blatant attack on equal protection of the law, and that disappoints me because I know my good friends believe in the Constitution on the other side of the aisle. And the Hyde amendment, and I had the privilege of serving with Chairman Hyde for a number of years on the Judiciary Committee, clearly is the law.

But what this bill has done is gone even further. It has disenfranchised, from their civil liberties, the people of the District of Columbia, and completely abolished home rule, to the extent of women's health. And if it was a State, the question would be whether or not it was appropriate under the 10th Amendment.

Then it has disincentivized small businesses, for you have disqualified them from getting a tax incentive or a tax credit because they are not allowed to provide for their employees.

This bill should be put to the side, and we should pass legislation to ensure that the unemployed have unemployment insurance. That is what is right about America, and we should do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

Instead of resuming their War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to extend unemployment insurance to the 1.9 million Americans whose benefits have been terminated and to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.

A far better use of our time would be to provide help to long-term unemployed jobhunters by bringing to the floor and passing H.R. 3888, the ``New Chance for a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced that would provide compensated skills training for the jobs of tomorrow to the long-term unemployed.

Last year I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation when it was brought to the floor. I opposed this bill when it was considered in the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I opposed this bill yesterday when it was being considered by the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, the version of H.R. 7 before us is only a little less bad than the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Dropped are the tax provisions that would prevent an individual from deducting any abortion expenses as a tax-eligible medical expense or using pre-tax flex health or health savings accounts for abortion expenses.

But the other draconian provisions of this terrible bill remain intact:

1. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.)

2. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.

3. Applies such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.

4. Prohibits individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions.

5. Prohibits small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.

Taken together, these provisions have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a State could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. The bill before us

threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman who has served on this committee of opportunity, equality and justice for his entire career, among other committees, in the United States Congress. Let me thank the manager and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well.

We do not come to the floor in argument about each other's conscience. We respect the belief of others and the conscience of others and the integrity of the decision made by those who choose to stand for their positions. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I only stand here on the basis

of equal protection under the law and the applying of the Constitution to every single person, which includes a woman's access to health care.

What H.R. 7 does beyond the Hyde amendment, which has been law and in law and adhered to for decades, one, that I would be reminded of the eloquence of Chairman Hyde, who would be on the floor discussing the continuation of his position.

That is very kind, sir.

If, for example, you have pretax money for health care or a health savings account, you are taken care of, but if you live in the District of Columbia and you want to use local funds, you are left along the highway of unequalness. If you are in the United States military, you are left along the highway of unequalness. If, for example, you have been the victim of sexual assault that results in a situation that requires access to health care, you are left alone. Federal employees, you are left alone. Poor, you are left alone.

The bill that we have was just submitted to the Rules Committee. It was not before the House Judiciary Committee. We don't know what is in it.

So, Madam Speaker, I do not rise against a person's conscience. I rise and hold the Constitution in my hand, and that is that we have a right to privacy, and we have a right to use local or your own funds, and in this bill, all of that has been denied. I ask the question: Can we pass this legislation and deny Americans equal protection under the law?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is an assault on women; and ask that my colleagues also vote against H.R. 7, The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act.

What we have before us in H.R. 7 is a dangerous and misleading bill which has one goal--eliminating abortion coverage in all of the insurance markets. And it is the reincarnation of H.R. 3 which was a featured bill in the last Congress.

And although some terrible things were in the bill have been removed--this bill is still an attack on women.

Let me be clear, if H.R. 7 were to become law, all women could either lose insurance coverage that includes abortion or be stigmatized while seeking such comprehensive insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee last night along with ALL of the women on the Judiciary Committee, which was summarily rejected as were all of the other amendments to this bill.

Our amendment would have corrected a shortcoming in the bill, which only considers a woman's health when she is faced with death.

I would like to thank all four women on the Judiciary Committee, Karen Bass, Judy Chu, Susan DelBene, and Zoe Lofgren who cosponsored this important amendment.

Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long-lasting damage to their health during pregnancy.

This Congress should not be in business of interfering with a woman's health nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure a long-lasting health defect or disease due to a pregnancy.

Without this amendment, this Congress would submit millions of women to face serious and long- lasting health issues.

Our amendment reflects the 1978 version of the Hyde Amendment by incorporating an exemption for severe and long-lasting damage to a woman's health in continuing a pregnancy.

This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Women must receive the best health care and disease prevention and have access to all medically appropriate legal medical procedures.

And Mr. Speaker it must be stated over and over that this is purely partisan and divisive legislation which:

1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk;

2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother;

3. Unfairly targets the District of Columbia; and

4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to devel beyond the 22- week point. There was less than a 10 percent chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2 percent chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. And again, our amendment would have helped to preserve this hard won right for women.

Let's not turn back the hands of time Mr. Speaker--vote ``no'' on

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a list of those opposing H.R. 7 into the Record.

Organizations Opposing H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

Act''

Advocates for Youth; American Association of University

Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public

Health Association; American Society for Reproductive

Medicine; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum;

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP);

Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice; Center

for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA.

Feminist Majority; Guttmacher Institute; Hadassah, The

Women's Zionist Organization

of America, Inc; Jewish Women International; Joint Action

Committee for Political Affairs; Methodist Federation for

Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Abortion

Federation; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum

(NAPAWF); National Center for Lesbian Rights; National

Council of Jewish Women; National Family Planning and

Reproductive Health Association; National Health Law Program;

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

National Organization for Women; National Partnership for

Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Physicians

for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of

America; Population Connection Action Fund; Population

Institute; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We

Need; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Religious Institute; Reproductive Health Technologies

Project; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the

U.S. (SIECUS); South Carolina Small Business Chamber of

Commerce; Third Way; Unitarian Universalist Association;

Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of

Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, I will join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss a very important topic that has long been one of our crucial issues proliferating now across America and around the world--income inequality--but I wanted to rise as I understand the farm bill is now prepared to go to the Rules Committee, and now will be on the floor of the House this week.

In an Associated Press article on ``The New Face of Food Stamps-- Working-Age Americans,'' now, in 2013-2014, 50 percent of those receiving food stamps are working Americans, such as the young lady pictured here, who is 25 years old, with a 3-year-old son, who, yes, was in the United States Army.

When are we going to realize that even though the economy is churning and that the jobs being created are low-wage jobs that the working and middle class need our help? It is not a handout. It is not a way to be able to close the deficit and the debt, which is closing by breaking the backs of hardworking Americans. What a shame that a farm bill would come forward as it has never come forward before, and it takes away a lifeline for hardworking Americans.

Let me thank the distinguished coleader of the task force in presenting our case to the American people, the distinguished gentleman from New York--and I say it with great affection and respect--and his coleader, Mr. Horsford, the distinguished gentleman from Nevada.

Let me quickly indicate that income equality has been raised by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Task Force on Poverty through our chairwoman, the Honorable Marcia Fudge; my colleague, Barbara Lee; myself and others through the years--one might offer to say decade--and you will hear from our other members. The distinguished dean of New York gave the history. I know the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey is on the floor, as well as our southern anchor, Representative Mr. G.K. Butterfield. Again, we also have New York, New York's Representative, Yvette Clarke. I think our members are here because we come from far and wide.

Income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among the population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between rich and poor, has been growing markedly for some 30 years.

U.S. income inequality has been rising steadily over the past four decades. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that it is reaching levels not seen since the 1920s; and for those of us who read the history books, we know of the financial collapse leading to the Depression of that era. That is frightening.

In the midst of that discussion, we are hearing babble or conversation about reducing the debt and closing the deficit, when we have decidedly made a mark on that over the last decade. We did so with President Obama's fixing and working to turn Wall Street back on its feet. We did it with the stimulus package which infused dollars into the economy. We fixed the mortgage meltdown, and so now we find that houses are being sold and banks want to be able to relax how they give money to their various clients that are seeking to buy a house.

We are at a point where we need to stop talking about the deficit and the debt--which is closing--and the debt going down, and start talking about investing in America and closing the horror of wealth inequality. Somebody is going to understand from whence they came and know that America was always a place where someone without shoes could walk into the opportunities and the sunlight of opportunity.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's history tells of how very poor he was growing up after the loss of income from his father. It was on his mind that people who are poor should not be treated with indignity.

So one of the biggest factors driving the increase in income inequality since 2000 is the stagnation of the typical American household in terms of income. We need to raise the minimum wage. We need to stop blaming poor people and suggesting that their condition is their own.

There are studies by the University of Wisconsin and the University of Kentucky, and let me give the facts. A low-wage job supplemented with food stamps is becoming more common for the working poor. They have a job, and yet they have to get food stamps. That is not their desire. They are working people. They want to be respected for their work.

Many of the U.S. jobs now being created are low-income or minimum wage, part-time, or in areas such as retail or fast food. Yes, jobs. We don't denigrate them; but it brings about the highest level of income inequality. And then, on top of it, we are cutting billions from food stamps.

As I told you, a young lady in Texas makes $10 an hour working to be able to provide for her family. Without shame, she has to get on food stamps; and since 2009, 50 percent of the individuals getting food stamps are working. That is a point that we should realize.

We need to increase the minimum wage, and we realize that the highest number of high school graduates head the bulk of the food stamp households, but college graduates or those who have had some college are also on food stamps.

Income inequality: as recently as 1998, the working age of a share of food stamp households was at 44. It is now up to 50.

Let me say we are finding ourselves in an economy of globalization, automation, and outsourcing. I would like to work with my Republican friends on curing that disease--the disease of outsourcing, giving up people's jobs, and cutting down on manufacturing--which, in actuality, under President Obama, we have been able to surge up.

I would like them to look at legislation that says if you are chronically unemployed, you can get training. You can get a credit and you get the unemployment, and you don't have to touch that. But you get a training credit or a stipend to change your life.

The young lady in this newspaper article is trying to save money to be able to get paramedic training. She wanted to be a nurse. She had to drop out because of the lack of money. What are we doing about people like that?

Let me close, Mr. Jeffries, with the CNN commentary, or CNN programing. The individual that gave these words was a prominent wealthy gentleman who is a senior citizen. I have a great respect for senior citizens. I really do. They are all over my district. But I hope that we don't have to come to a time that the idea of trying to balance wealth inequality gets you accused of being like Nazis. My heart is broken to able to think that someone would misconstrue the idea of helping this young 25-year-old suffering with low wages and trying to close the income gap to a ridiculous comparison as that. Freedom of speech, of course; but that is ridiculous.

Let me show this form as my final expression here.

We are still fighting to get unemployment benefits. The numbers have gone past 1.9 million; and let me be very clear that four out of five beneficiaries have at least one other adult in the household. Many support children, single adults, multiple adults in the household. These people need an unemployment insurance extension for basic benefits, and we can't even do it. And we used to do it on an emergency basis in the same breath as talking about debt and deficit.

We need to invest in America's people. We need infrastructure to create jobs and close the wealth inequality.

One-half of the people who need an unemployment insurance extension have at least some college. Nine in 10 live in households with total income of less than $75,000 a year. They need that bridge to keep them going; and shamefully, unfortunately, we have not done that.

So I want to thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity. I feel bipartisanship coming from my colleagues as they begin to talk on the floor, and that bipartisanship wants to have an increase in the minimum wage, to make it a livable wage, pass the emergency unemployment insurance, and have a reconsideration. Even though I know there is a conference bill, we just can't cut food stamps to those who are suffering.

I want to thank the gentleman. I look forward to investing in jobs that will be equal in income. I look forward to dealing with making automation work for those who want to work, technology work for those who want to work, closing the outsourcing gap and boosting manufacturing to give hardworking Americans who want something more than unemployment, but need it now; who want something more than low- skilled jobs, but need jobs now; and want something more than having to get food stamps, but need it now, to be able to close this heinous income inequality that is plaguing America. It is an epidemic that we must fight with every bit of our breath.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and I want to debunk the terrible definition and description of some 1.3--now 1.9--million unemployed Americans.

I reject the theory that they only sit around for unemployment and will not look for a job unless they are not getting unemployment insurance when everybody knows that the requirements of emergency unemployment insurance require individuals to look for work. For everyone I have spoken to, including learning the story of a woman in New York who is 58 years old and who has looked for work over and over and, likewise, is desperate and devastated because she is not able to provide the bare minimum, I have introduced H.R. 3888.

I ask my colleagues to join me in legislation that will target and train the chronically unemployed, that will provide their unemployment insurance and that will give them a stipend for emerging industry training. I say to my Republican colleagues: if you are interested in jobs, jobs, jobs, join this legislation; but right now, today, let's stay here and vote on unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who have contributed and shed their blood--many of them veterans, many of them willing to sacrifice. All they need is a helping hand. Pass unemployment insurance.

Where is our heart?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 106th anniversary of the founding of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., the first Greek-letter organization established by black college women in America.

This prestigious organization, founded at Howard University by nine visionary women in 1908, at a period when Jim Crow laws flourished in the law books, knew the rigors of their journey during the early 1900s. Those nine special women were: Anna Easter Brown, Beulah Burke, Lillie Burke, Marjorie Hill, Margaret Flagg Holmes, Ethel Hedgeman Lyle, Lavinia Norman, Lucy Slowe, and Marie Woolfolk Taylor.

The organization, which has grown to a sisterhood of more than 260,000 members in 975 chapters worldwide, includes an extraordinary collection of women, who now encompass diverse ethnicities and nationalities and are united by a bond of sisterhood and a commitment to service.

Alpha Kappa Alpha was founded to touch lives, improve the stature of women and serve humankind. Its mission is to develop leaders, expand educational and economic opportunity, and ensure that the Sorority is fully engaged in the civic life of the nation and each community in which it has a chapter.

Sojourner Truth once said, that ``If women want any rights more than [they've] got, why don't they just take them and not be talking about it.'' This quote embodies the spirit that the determined women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

Alpha Kappa Alpha is home to college presidents, deans, directors of Fortune 500 companies, judges, mayors, Members of Congress, state legislatures, city councils, and school boards. This sorority has provided the foundation for intellectuals such as Sharon Pratt Kelly, the first woman to serve as mayor of Washington, D.C.; Angie Brookes, the first woman President of the United Nations; the long revered Rosa Parks, mother of the Civil Rights Movement; Azie Taylor Morton, the only African-American to hold the position of Treasurer of the United States; and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

Alpha Kappa Alpha women have served in the United States Armed Services and devoted their lives to saving ours. I salute those women today who are active or retired military personnel. They are the sheroes that should be emulated by the next generation.

AKA's have long referred to founder Ethel Hedgeman Lyle as the ``guiding light,'' a figurative phrase that emphasizes the central importance to AKA sisters of aptitude, resilience, unwavering service, and valor.

President George W. Bush, in his address at the 55th Inauguration, stated that:

Our nation relies on men and women who look after a

neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our

best, value the life we see in one another, and must always

remember that even the unwanted have worth.

I am honored to commemorate this historic milestone and commemorate the 106th anniversary of the coming together of an amazing sisterhood, born of the passion for humanitarian service and educational excellence of nine extraordinary young women.

As a member of the Alpha Kappa Omega Graduate Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority in Houston, Texas, I take great pride in the fact that the legacy of the founders lives on in the work of the Omega Graduate Chapter under the leadership of Marianne Young Walker, Chapter President; and Jeanne Cherise Story, Chapter Treasurer.

Alpha Kappa Omega Chapter located in Houston, Texas is also the home chapter of:

The 18th International President, Dr. Mattelia B. Grays; the 21st International President, Ms. Faye B. Bryant; the 20th South Central Regional Director, Dr. Polly Sparks Turner; and the 23rd South Central Regional Director, Mrs. Gwendolyn J. Brinkley.

Inspired by a dedicated investment of human capital and a bold commitment to the principles of basic human rights, the sisters of Alpha Kappa Omega Chapter dedicates their talent and resources to the betterment of their community and live by this motto: ``Global Leadership through Timeless Service.''

Among the signature program initiatives of Alpha Kappa Omega Chapter are the following:

Emerging Young Leaders Program, which--impact the lives of 10,000 girls in grades six through eight by providing leadership development, civic engagement, enhanced academic preparation and character building.

Health Initiatives--encourage personal fitness and healthy life styles to reduce health disparities, save lives.

Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability an initiative to encourage energy efficiency, conservation, eco-living, reforestation, urban gardening, education and empowerment of consumers, and opportunities for women owned businesses.

Global Poverty Initiative, a program to hunger, preserve the environment and empower women by providing food production skills and training in self-reliance through gifts of seeds, livestock and training in environmentally sound agriculture.

Social Justice and Human Right Initiative, which addresses gender equality issues including human trafficking and domestic violence, services for children with incarcerated parents, youth aging out of foster care and children in homeless shelters.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the extraordinary achievements of this extraordinary organization that has been providing leadership for our nation for 106 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill, H.R. 3547, the bipartisan ``Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.''

I want to thank Chairman Rodgers and Ranking Member Lowey for their constructive work in fashioning this bipartisan and bicameral legislation to fund the government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2014.

The bill before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class.

As with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I do not.

The bill abides by all the terms set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (the ``Ryan-Murray Agreement''), providing a total of $1.012 trillion for the operation of the federal government, a substantial and necessary increase over the inadequate $968 billion spending limit contained in the House budget resolution which led to the shutdown of the federal government last October.

The bill contains all 12 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014, with no area of the government functioning under a Continuing Resolution, thus allowing every program to be considered on its own merits and prioritized, rather than be subject to arbitrary across the board cuts.

The bill also provides increases funding for several programs that I strongly support. Let me list just a few of the more important ones.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to plead for the restoration of food programs like SNAP that have been targeted for reduction by billions of dollars due to sequestration and direct cuts.

In 2013, according to the Houston Food Bank's ``Map the Meal Gap'' report, the overall food insecurity for Houston Food Bank's eight- county service area was 18.5 percent, and children's food insecurity was 24.2 percent.

The Shriver Report just issued indicated that there are some 48 million women living in poverty and 22 million children.

The Houston Food Bank reports that 415,000 children, or one in four children in their service area, are food-insecure, and when we had a meeting with the chronically unemployed, the food bank acknowledged that the social network is overworked and over-serviced, although I know they will work to do their best.

11,000 more children are food-insecure than in this year, and 21,000 more adults are food-insecure.

That is why I am introducing H.R. 3888, the New Chance For a New Start Life Act of 2014, to train the chronically unemployed, some 37.7 percent of the unemployed.

I also want to salute, Mr. Speaker, the Alpha Kappa Alphas. This is their Founder's Day on January 15, as well as the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. In their name, let us do for those who need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the importance of two of our nation's safety net programs--unemployment insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.

Last month I held an event at the Career and Recovery Resources Center in my district to draw attention to the 1.3 million people nationwide who lost their emergency federal unemployment insurance, which includes 12,000 unemployed job hunters in Houston.

At that event nonprofit social service organizations expressed their concern that their resources were not adequate to serve all of those who live day to day on the tattered edges of our nation's income, housing, food, and medical care safety net programs.

The churches, nonprofits, and social service organizations that run food pantries and assistance programs for the poor are desperate.

They do not have, nor can they find, funding to meet the needs of the millions of people who are stripped of resources because of cuts to federal programs that are poverty prevention and life sustaining.

Each week an additional 4,112 Texans will lose their unemployment insurance benefits--this is an emergency.

Because Food programs like SNAP have been targeted for reduction in the billions of dollars due to Sequestration and direct cuts to the program unemployment insurance has come to be a vital resource for families--especially those with children or people who are chronically ill.

In 2013, according to the Houston Food Bank's ``Map the Meal Gap'' report the overall food insecurity for the Houston Food Bank eight- county service area was 18.5%; and children's food insecurity was 24.2%.

The Houston Food Bank reports that 415,030 children or 1 in 4 children in their service area are food insecure.

In 2013 data shows: 11,000 more children are food insecure than in the year before; and, 21,500 more adults are food insecure than in the year before. Based on family income more than one third of food insecure children in the Houston Food Bank service area are not eligible for federal food assistance programs.