[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 59 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3014-H3037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 237

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) 
     to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for 
     conscience protections, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. House Resolution 237 provides for a closed rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3. The rule provides for ample debate on this 
bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the 
opportunity to participate in the debate.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying

[[Page H3015]]

bill. For the past 30 years, we've used a patchwork system of clauses 
and amendments to protect American tax dollars from being used to pay 
for abortions. Every year Congress has to attach a series of amendments 
to appropriation bills specifically stating that funds spent in that 
legislation may not be used for elective abortions. Every year these 
amendments pass. These amendments pass, Madam Speaker, because Members 
of Congress know and recognize the fact that the vast majority of 
Americans do not want their hard-earned money to be spent for abortions 
of innocent, unborn lives.

                              {time}  1230

  In 2010 the Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 77 percent of Americans 
believe that Federal funds should never be used to pay for abortions or 
should only be used to save the life of the mother--77 percent, Madam 
Speaker. This number proves that even people who support a woman's 
right to choose still believe that tax dollars should not pay for that 
choice.
  Clearly the time has come to move beyond this piecemeal approach and 
reform the way our Nation addresses this very important and sensitive 
issue.
  H.R. 3 simply codifies and makes permanent the policies that 
currently rely upon regular, re-approval of Congress. Among the riders 
made permanent to H.R. 3 are:
  the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion 
coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health 
and Human Services Appropriations Act;
  the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method 
of family planning overseas;
  the Smith Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan amendment, which 
prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees;
  the Dornan amendment, which prohibits the use of congressionally 
appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia;
  the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, which ensures that recipients of 
Federal funding do not discriminate against doctors, nurses, and 
hospitals because they do not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for 
abortions.
  Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose can be a divisive issue that 
splits the American people down the middle. However, we aren't talking 
about a 50/50 issue; we're talking about 77 percent. It's clearly a 
majority.
  Just like Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that tax 
dollars shouldn't go to pay for abortions, so do the Members of 
Congress from both parties. There are 227 bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 
3. I'm proud to be one of those cosponsors.
  H.R. 3 will ensure that American taxpayers are not forced to fund 
what many consider the destruction of innocent human life through 
abortion on demand.
  The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government-
wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion or insurance coverage 
that includes abortion. This comprehensive approach will reduce the 
need for numerous separate abortion-funding riders.
  It eliminates abortion-related amendments to appropriation bills, 
bills that the rules of the House remind us aren't even supposed to 
legislate through amendments. It ensures that all Federal programs are 
subject to this important safeguard.
  Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have had many misnamed bills, euphemistically called almost 
anything to try to make some kind of point, but this one does not have 
a thing in the world to do with restricting Federal money used in 
abortions. That has not been done for 30 years. This bill actually says 
let's try to make sure that no insurance companies in the country will 
ever cover them again no matter what the circumstances.
  With no other medical procedure would we be even standing here 
talking about what's best for American citizens. In all my years in 
Congress, I have never had to debate a bill about how and when a 
patient can receive an appendectomy nor a bill about how or when a 
patient can receive corrective surgery nor is it legal to have a 
vasectomy.
  Yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the 
status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected 
right to access reproductive health care. In the case of abortion, it 
has been decided with this bill that they can dictate how and when a 
woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care.
  In part because women are instinctual nurturers, the decision about 
whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most personal and 
important decisions that they will ever make. In making this decision, 
a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it 
be her doctor, her spouse, her family, a parent, confidant, or 
religious adviser.
  But a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to extreme 
restrictions placed upon her by Members of Congress. I've served in 
three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue 
suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of 
pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action.
  I have often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an 
abortion and have many people, including some of my own constituents, 
who disagree with me, and that's fine. They have never, however, tried 
by law to enforce upon me what they themselves believe.
  Once I was at a meeting in my district and I was asked by a man who 
was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, What should be done 
about that? And my response to him was simple and personal and still 
applies today.
  I asked him that if, God forbid, he ever finds himself in a difficult 
position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an 
abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was 
in danger or because of another personal or private matter, is he 
willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and during the 
discussion, No decision can be made until Louise Slaughter gets here 
because Congress will make that decision for him?
  The right to an abortion is already a procedure that is carefully 
regulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today's legislation would go 
far beyond this status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to 
make it practically impossible to receive an abortion under these laws.
  Today's bill changes the tax system--this is an important point and I 
want you to understand this--for private health care plans that offer 
abortion coverage to small businesses and individuals, as most of them 
do. If passed into law, this bill would pressure private health 
insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. And that, 
Madam Speaker, is the purpose of this bill.
  In addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door 
to the IRS audits of rape and incest survivors, to prove that they 
followed the law when paying for an abortion. Do we do this with 
anything else--I'm absolutely astonished--to place this kind of burden 
on a medical procedure? It's been designed specifically to chip away at 
the rights of women.
  Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the 
committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need 
to know what this says in this report language, which is as important 
as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is 
intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in 
cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a 
child too young to give consent.
  Now, think about that for a moment. This bill forbids any money being 
used to help that child. It's not bad enough that they have been raped 
or that they are victims of incest. Now we're telling them that they 
have to keep records so that they can prove to the IRS that they 
followed the law? That is what I thought about when I made the 
statement earlier this spring ``show me your papers.'' And that is 
precisely what this bill is asking to do.
  If this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape. Think about 
your children. Think about other people's children. If it becomes law, 
the committee report will become one of the

[[Page H3016]]

documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about 
abortion. With the committee report in hand, a future justice would 
have the document they need to further restrict access to abortion for 
victims of rape and incest. If this sounds extreme, believe me, it is.
  We, like our Nation's Founders, know that each individual is entitled 
to his or her beliefs. But no matter how strongly we believe them, we 
should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. Yet placing 
an ideology upon others and restricting their choices when it comes to 
reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of 
the many reasons why it should be stopped.

                              {time}  1240

  As we all know, at the time of our Nation's founding, the ideal of 
equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. In fact, it was not 
even of much concern. African Americans were property; women could not 
vote or own anything; and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed 
could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband, 
who had all the rights. Native Americans were pushed off their land and 
out of our society.
  With great struggle and over time--and certainly, I know of the 
struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own 
district, which is where that struggle began--we have righted many of 
these wrongs, and as a Nation, we have come to believe that men and 
women of every color and creed are created equal, that we are all 
entitled to the rights and individual freedoms at the core of our 
Nation's ideals.
  Today's proposed legislation up-ends the principle of equal rights 
and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally 
protected right to an abortion. Instead of crafting legislation to 
restrict a woman's right to safe, secure reproductive health, this 
Congress should respect the rights of women and uphold their 
constitutionally protected rights.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and on 
the underlying bill, which may be the most egregious that comes to the 
floor this year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, Dr. 
Gingrey of Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  I do rise in very strong support of this rule as well as the 
underlying bill, H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  I would also like to commend our colleague from New Jersey, 
Representative Chris Smith, for his leadership on this legislation and 
for his steadfast pro-life stance throughout his tenure in Congress.
  Madam Speaker, as a practicing OB/GYN physician for nearly 30 years, 
I believe that all life is sacred. The issue of abortion is a very 
personal issue for me as it is for many people across the country and 
for many Members of this body. However, that is not why we are 
considering this legislation on the House floor today. Instead, we are 
here to answer one simple question:
  Should American tax dollars be used to fund abortions? When an 
elective choice can decide life and death, should the Federal 
Government be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for that choice?
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is a bill that seeks to set right what the last 
Congress got wrong: to ensure that abortions are not funded by taxpayer 
dollars. At its very base level, H.R. 3 simply codifies the Hyde 
Amendment, which has been enacted in some form or another as an 
appropriations rider since fiscal year 1976. Through this legislation 
today, we will make permanent the prohibition on Federal funding for 
abortions, thereby eliminating the inherent vulnerability that riders 
like the Hyde Amendment face as part of the annual appropriations 
process.
  Furthermore, H.R. 3 codifies the Hyde-Dr. Dave Weldon conscience 
clause that has protected health care providers from discrimination by 
State and local governments for simply refusing to provide, to pay for 
or to even refer for abortion. Additionally, H.R. 3 will allow those 
health care providers who choose not to perform abortions legal 
recourse if they face, as they often do, overt discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 also prevents Federal funds from being used for 
tax credits that subsidize health insurance coverage that includes 
elective abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, so-called ``ObamaCare.'' One of the many problems with this law 
ObamaCare is that there is no statutory language prohibiting premium 
assistance from being used for abortions despite many efforts of House 
and Senate Republicans during the last Congress. H.R. 3 provides the 
assurance that our taxpayer dollars will not be used in any form of 
Federal subsidies for abortion coverage.
  So, Madam Speaker, as a father and as an OB/GYN physician who has 
delivered over 5,000 babies, I will be voting to ensure that the 
Federal Government does not use taxpayer dollars for any elective 
abortion. I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule as well as 
the underlying bill, H.R. 3.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in vehement 
opposition to this rule and dangerous legislation, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act.
  This extreme bill's title belies its true intent--to go far beyond 
current law and comprehensively curtail women's health care. This bill 
isn't just about taxpayer funding for abortion. It is a comprehensive 
attack on women's lives. We hear all the time that people want 
government out of their lives, out of their business. There is nothing 
more invasive than the government's getting in between families and 
their doctors when making this difficult decision.
  This bill won't save taxpayer dollars or create jobs, but it will 
undermine women's health, and it will hurt small businesses by 
penalizing them for offering their employees insurance plans that cover 
a full range of women's health care. This is a slap in the face of 
small businesses, which are trying to take care of their companies, 
their employees and their own families. It is also a slap in the face 
to any family that has to make the difficult decision to seek abortion 
care.
  As a daughter and wife of physicians, I am shocked that we would so 
quickly dismiss the judgment of our country's medical personnel and 
families in making the best decision to preserve the health and lives 
of their loved ones. We are wasting time on divisive issues while 
denying the real implications this will have on our families and 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, Americans deserve to know how the government spends 
their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars 
for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Let me 
first make my own position clear.
  I am pro-life, and I believe that women deserve better than abortion; 
but certainly, we can all agree that the U.S. Government should not 
take tax dollars from hardworking Americans to fund abortion. I really 
believe it is time that we look at the reality of abortion, that we be 
honest and see the choice for what it is. It is interesting to note 
that the early feminist movement recognized that abortion is a 
fundamental injustice. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of 
children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility.
  The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. 
Abortion is also so often the result of psychological or physical 
coercion or even emotional or physical abandonment, which is a tragic 
social paradigm that has caused a deep wound in the soul of our 
country. No matter how difficult the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I 
believe we can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, 
taxpayer dollars should not be involved.
  This issue has manifested itself again most intently during the 
health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will 
fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Madam 
Speaker, abortion is not health

[[Page H3017]]

care. The House of Representatives recently voted to stop the use of 
taxpayer funds for abortions in the District of Columbia. For decades, 
Congress has proscribed Federal funding for abortion in this piecemeal 
fashion through the Hyde Amendment and other similar provisions in 
annual appropriations.
  It is time to settle this once and for all as the majority of 
Americans wish. This bill will provide a comprehensive prohibition on 
the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the socially divisive issue of 
abortion, and it is time we stopped it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds just to speak to something 
that is very important.
  H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to 
provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health 
conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing 
women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think 
that is morally unacceptable.
  Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a 
pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 
that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both 
health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would 
prevent her from having that.
  I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a nurse, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).

                              {time}  1250

  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation.
  A mere 2 weeks ago, the Republican majority brought us to the brink 
of government shutdown over their disapproval of Planned Parenthood. 
But instead of moving past divisive social issues and addressing our 
economic challenges with housing and creating jobs, we are here again 
today witnessing the Republicans' obsession with reopening the culture 
wars.
  H.R. 3 represents the most egregious attack on reproductive rights in 
over 35 years, rights that are protected by the Supreme Court decision. 
H.R. 3 uses the Tax Code to effectively deny access to insurance that 
includes abortion care coverage, no matter how it is paid for. What it 
doesn't do is trust our Nation's women, trust our Nation's families, 
their doctors, their clergy, and trust small businesses to make their 
own health care choices for their employees. This is unacceptable. Make 
no mistake, despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the 
aisle, the bill is not about funding. It is about using our laws and 
our Tax Code to infringe upon the rights of women, the protected rights 
of women and families across this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, it is time that this Congress places trust in our 
Nation's women, its families and small businesses to make their own 
health care choices.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 3.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend Mr. Nugent for 
yielding and thank him for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, America has changed and today is more pro-life than 
ever. By ever-increasing majorities, especially among our young people, 
the megatrend is to protect the child in the womb from the insidious 
violence of abortion and to protect women from the trauma, often 
lifelong emotional harm, of procuring an abortion.
  This paradigm shift, reflected in all the major polls, is the direct 
result of pro-life education, pregnancy care centers, pro-life laws, 
including funding bans, informed consent and parental involvement 
statutes, the molding of consciences by the faith-based community and 
advances in ultrasound that have shattered the pernicious pro-abortion 
myth that the baby in the womb isn't a human person or alive or of 
innate value.
  Even Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director Abby Johnson was 
shocked into her new pro-life view by witnessing an ultrasound-guided 
abortion of a 13-week-old baby who was dismembered and pulverized in 
real time right before her eyes at that Texas clinic.
  But perhaps the greatest reason for the huge shift in public opinion 
in favor of life is the growing number of extraordinarily brave post-
abortive women who deeply regret their abortions and today are silent 
no more.
  One post-abortive woman told a group outside the U.S. Supreme Court, 
and I heard her say it, that as she lay on the operating table, the 
abortionist laughed as he inserted a sharp knife into her womb and 
said, ``Oh, it is trying to get away.'' Partially sedated, the woman 
immediately pleaded with the nurse and doctor to stop the abortion and 
to spare her child. They told her to shut up. Today she is deeply 
wounded by that cruel assault, that lethal assault on her baby.
  Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has had 
two abortions. Today she has joined the growing coalition of women who 
deeply regret their abortions. Out of deep personal pain and compassion 
for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love 
both mother and child.
  The women of Silent No More give post-abortive women a safe place to 
grieve and a roadmap to reconciliation. And to society at large, and 
especially to Congress, these brave women compel us to rethink and to 
reassess the cheap sophistry of the abortion culture. Reflecting on her 
famous uncle's speech, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. Alveda King 
asks us: ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?''
  Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending public 
funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher 
Institute in June of 2009 in a report said ``approximately one-fourth 
of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions if the Hyde 
amendment didn't exist instead give birth when this funding is 
unavailable.''
  I vividly remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved to 
tears when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the 
lives of more than 1 million children, who today are perhaps in school 
and getting ready for summer vacation, perhaps playing sports, or, if 
they are in their twenties or thirties, building their own families.
  H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively 
ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal 
Government, including ObamaCare, including the Hyde amendment, do not 
subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, 
incest and life of the mother.
  H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy allowing tax-favored treatment for 
abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs and FSAs. H.R. 3 also 
ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans 
that include abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the 
mother.
  Today we seek to end taxpayer complicity in abortion violence. No 
taxpayer should be coerced to pay, subsidize or facilitate the 
dismemberment, the chemical poisoning, the starvation--and remember, 
that is how RU-486 works; it first starves the baby to death, then the 
other chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby--or the suctioning to 
death of a child and the harming of women.
  Regarding conscience rights, H.R. 3 protects pro-life health care 
entities by discrimination by State, local and Federal governments and 
empowers the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or 
threatened violations of conscience.
  The need for this protection is great. According to the Alliance of 
Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic health 
systems and hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a 
public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of 
conscience rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other 
health care providers to perform, be complicit in or pay for 
abortions.''
  So I urge Members to support this legislation. It is backed by 228 
cosponsors.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to put in the 
real Guttmacher statement, what they have said. ``The claim that 
restoration of Federal Medicaid coverage would result in a significant 
increase in the incidence of abortion nationwide is not supported by 
research, and extrapolating from Guttmacher's Medicaid

[[Page H3018]]

findings to assert that coverage in the private insurance market is 
strongly linked to abortion incidence is entirely illegitimate.''
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
  Henry Hyde was one of the outstanding Members of the House of 
Representatives in the history of the House of Representatives. He 
believed intently in a pro-life position, and the remarks of colleagues 
who support this legislation are ones that I think Mr. Hyde would 
approve of. But he was also a master legislator, and he understood that 
other people have a different point of view than he has, and on the 
matter of abortion, something that is a matter of faith for many 
people, a matter of conscience for everyone, there are different points 
of view.
  The excellent job that Mr. Hyde did was to take direct taxpayer 
funding out of the equation. If there were going to be abortions, they 
were not going to be paid for by taxpayer dollars. This amendment takes 
it a radical step further. What it does is it says, if there is any tax 
credit that is part of a health care plan, then this legislation would 
prohibit a small business from offering that health care plan to its 
workers.
  Now, just think about the enormous burden that is being placed on 
hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses in Vermont, on millions 
of small businesses in this country. Every one of those businesses, 
where it offers a comprehensive health care plan to their employees 
that may include abortion services, suddenly has to unravel those plans 
and deny that coverage to its workers. So what we have is an action by 
the sponsors of this legislation that would impose its will far beyond 
what Mr. Hyde ever did or sought to do on every small business in this 
country.

                              {time}  1300

  By the way, there's another issue here, a precedent. If now we're 
starting to interfere with the use of tax credits, does this mean the 
next target is what kind of home you buy if you're going to get the use 
of a taxpayer deduction?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
  Does it mean that if you're doing research on biotechnology, that the 
tax credit is going to be restricted and dictated by a majority, 
whoever it happens to be, of this House of Representatives? The basic 
question for this Congress is whether we're going to allow the status 
quo to exist through the Hyde amendment where people can exercise their 
conscience on this important question, or are we going to have a 
dictation from this Congress that absolutely and completely prohibits 
people from making that choice themselves.
  The mutual respect that Mr. Hyde understood we needed in this country 
is really going to be frayed with this legislation. So I would urge 
Members to vote against this legislation. That's out of respect for the 
fact that there are sharply different views on this extraordinarily 
important question.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my colleague 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me time to 
speak on the importance of protecting defenseless unborn children and 
ensuring taxpayer money is not used to pay for elective abortions.
  I do want to explain to my glib friend from Vermont, who is so good 
on the floor, that the Hyde amendment itself covers plans as well as 
direct funding. So I think the people need to know there's a slight 
correction to the comments that he made.
  According to a CNN poll last month, Madam Speaker, more than 60 
percent of Americans oppose taxpayer-funding for abortion. Today, this 
House has the historic opportunity to end the patchwork of policies 
that are intended to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion by passing 
a government-wide prohibition on funding elective abortions. H.R. 3, 
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many longstanding 
pro-life protections that have been passed under both Republican and 
Democrat-controlled Congresses. In fact, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 
has voted 14 times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the 
District of Columbia. President Obama voted against taxpayer funding of 
abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate; 
and since being elected President, he's signed appropriations 
legislation into law that prohibits this funding.
  As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for 
abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the American 
people. There's nothing more important than protecting voiceless unborn 
children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and 
the underlying bill and say that my colleague from Vermont said we can 
differ on opinions, but this is the right position to take.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in 
opposition to H.R. 3, a bill that threatens women's health and access 
to care. Over the past 2 weeks, as I traveled in my district, the top-
of-mind issues were the economy and jobs. Now that we're back in D.C., 
instead of working together on bills that move our economy forward, 
we're asked to debate divisive social policy. Clearly, the priorities 
of the Republican majority do not match those of the people of Hawaii.
  There are those who will say that H.R. 3 maintains the status quo. 
Not so. H.R. 3 is an extreme, radical measure that could deny tax 
credits for small businesses, take us back to the days when a woman had 
to prove that she was a victim of rape, and violate women's medical 
privacy rights. Do you think small business owners have the time and 
needed expertise to determine if their insurance plans cover abortions? 
Do you want to take our country back to the days when a woman had to 
prove that she resisted her rapist? Do you want to share your medical 
history with an IRS audit?
  I was a member of the State legislature in the 1980s in Hawaii when I 
worked with women and victim advocacy groups to change our sexual 
assault laws so that the prosecution focused on the perpetrator of the 
rape rather than on the actions of the victim. Our court system in 
those days, because of our law, victimized the victims of rape. Hawaii 
changed its laws. This bill takes us back to those days when a woman 
had to show that she resisted.
  Hawaii was also the first State in the Nation to decriminalize 
abortion and give a woman the right to choose. The person who carried 
this bill in the legislature was Senator Vince Yano, a devout Catholic. 
Governor Jack Burns, a devout Catholic--he went to mass every single 
day--he allowed this bill to become law in Hawaii, in spite of the fact 
that he had a lot of pressure as a Catholic to veto this bill. He could 
have done so. He respected the right of a woman to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this rule and this 
bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my colleague for this opportunity.
  You're seeing the old argument of Washington versus the new realities 
of America. We have two distinct issues here. Those two issues are: 
one, life; two, the taxpayer. I think those things are becoming very 
stark. Here we are, a situation where a President has signed an 
executive order to do many of the exact same things--to not allow 
Federal-funded abortions to be happening. Yet somehow we shouldn't be 
putting this into law. It seems common sense that we would do that. We 
need to do this to protect the taxpayer. If you look at polling, you 
look at the number of things that are going on, we cannot allow Federal 
funds to be used and our taxpayers to be used for this procedure.
  Now let's move on to life. We know the sanctity of life that is there 
from that very conception until natural death. We need to protect that. 
We need to protect that atmosphere as a government. That is not our job 
to promote that horrendous operation. It's our job to protect those 
children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

[[Page H3019]]

gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank you, Madam Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Gas 
prices are approaching $5 a gallon, millions of Americans are looking 
for work, and we're busy turning the Tax Code into a moral club. Forget 
that abortion is a legal procedure. Forget the Republicans want limited 
government when it comes to protecting you in the workplace but Big 
Government when it comes to regulating your bedroom. This isn't about 
anyone's position on abortion. Roe v. Wade was decided 38 years ago. 
It's the law of the land. This is about whether we should use the Tax 
Code as a moral club to impose the religious beliefs of a few Members 
of Congress on the entire Nation.
  What's next? Some find it immoral to drink alcohol or gamble. Should 
we outlaw business deductions for meals that include wine? How about 
business conventions in Las Vegas? Many people are morally opposed to 
profanity. Maybe we should make it against the law to swear when 
filling out your taxes.
  Now, how about more serious issues? Many of my constituents think the 
war in Iraq is immoral. The same goes for subsidies for Big Oil and tax 
breaks that reward corporations for shipping our jobs overseas.
  Singling out abortion is wrong. Even worse, it's a distraction from 
the serious challenges our Nation faces. If Republicans want to 
overturn Roe v. Wade, they should draft a bill and give it their best 
shot; but don't use the Tax Code as a bludgeon because you don't have 
the votes.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, 
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  A majority of Americans have made it clear that they oppose the 
government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions, and it's time 
that we permanently extend the Hyde amendment, which bans this 
irresponsible practice. Particularly in our current budget situation, 
the Federal Government should not be subsidizing abortions.

                              {time}  1310

  Additionally, this bill permanently extends important legal 
protections for doctors and other health care providers who refuse to 
perform abortions to which they are morally opposed. Every doctor and 
health care provider deserves the right to act according to his or her 
own conscience, and this important legislation will ensure that he or 
she is not punished for doing so.
  Madam Speaker, the American people support this legislation. They do 
not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. Let's stand 
together today and do the fiscally and morally responsible thing--vote 
to pass H.R. 3.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, if a proposal were brought to the House 
floor that said the following, ``If an American makes a charitable 
contribution and takes a deduction on his income tax return, that we're 
going to disallow the charitable deduction if the group that's 
receiving the money promotes gun ownership, gun rights or gun 
education,'' I suspect it would not get one vote on the Republican side 
of the aisle, and it shouldn't get any votes on the Democratic side of 
the aisle because it's wrong and it's probably unconstitutional.
  That is exactly what the underlying bill does here. It says that an 
American exercising his or her constitutional right, in this case her 
constitutional right, with their own money, will suffer a negative tax 
consequence because the majority wants them to.
  Understand this. If an American woman, with her own money, chooses to 
exercise her constitutional right, she will be suffering an increase in 
taxes as a result of making this decision. I scarcely say that anyone 
on the majority side would agree that if we picked one of their 
favorite social issues and said we're going to raise taxes on people 
who engage in that social issue, much less than a constitutional right, 
that they would agree with this.
  This is not a debate about abortion. This is a debate about privacy. 
It's a debate about individual liberty and the right of people to do 
what they choose with their own money, particularly when they're 
enforcing one of their own constitutional rights.
  I would also say for the record, it's my understanding that if this 
bill is carried out, a person who is a minor who is a victim of 
statutory rape may not be able to avail herself of her constitutional 
rights with her family's own money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I know very well, Madam Speaker, that people feel 
passionately about the right to life and the right to choose, and this 
is the forum in which that debate ought to take place. But using the 
Internal Revenue Code to either punish or reward certain social 
conduct, particularly conduct that is in the exercise of a 
constitutional right, is wrong, and if anyone on the majority side 
would like to tell me that they would vote for that NRA provision, I 
welcome that. I wouldn't, because it's an impermissible, 
unconstitutional burden on the constitutional rights of Americans. So 
is this.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation.
  As an obstetrician and gynecologist, I have delivered nearly 5,000 
babies, and I strongly support the sanctity of life. I believe life is 
a precious gift from God that begins at conception. I have seen human 
development occur from the earliest stages of a small fetus all the way 
through birth. The magic of the heartbeat at 26 to 28 days post-
conception is indescribable in my field like this, which strengthens my 
conviction of the right to life.
  Since 1976 until the passage of President Obama's health care reform 
law, Congress prevented taxpayer funding for abortions. Unless abortion 
is specifically excluded from Federal insurance plans, the courts and 
administrative agencies have historically mandated it. That's why the 
language in H.R. 3 is so important and necessary. It explicitly states 
that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortion.
  Abortion is not a business our government should be involved in. 
Because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. Regardless of 
how people felt about the President's health care law, people shared 
the belief that the President's Executive order on this subject was 
simply insufficient. I agree with this concern and believe that further 
efforts need to be made to ensure that no taxpayer funds are ever used 
for this purpose.
  Under H.R. 3, Federal funds are statutorily prohibited from being 
involved in any type of health care coverage or benefits that include 
abortion. This means future Presidents, or even our President, can't go 
back and insert abortion coverage on a whim.
  As legislators, we carry the responsibility and privilege to protect 
those who do not have a voice. We must make our laws consistent with 
our science and restore full legal protections to all who are waiting 
to be born. This starts with legislation like H.R. 3.
  One of government's core functions is to protect the most innocent 
among us, and I will do my best to ensure that government fulfills its 
duty. I will always fight for the right to life because it is my belief 
that we are unique creations of God who knows us and loves us even 
before we are conceived.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her strong 
work on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is unprecedented in a number of ways. It is 
unprecedented in that it uniquely affects my district, and yet I was 
not allowed to testify at the hearing of the Judiciary Committee where 
it was considered. It is unprecedented in its attack on a woman's right 
to choose, going

[[Page H3020]]

well beyond the Hyde amendment. And it is unprecedented in seeking to 
federalize the local funds of the District of Columbia.
  Section 309 of this bill would make permanent the ban in the recent 
2011 spending bill that keeps the District from spending its own local 
funds on abortions for poor women. That's bad enough, but the party 
that came to power even to devolve Federal power back to the States is 
engaged in the reverse process in this bill, in federalizing what has 
always been understood in our Constitution to be local power and, 
worse, local money and deciding how it should be spent.
  It is a dictatorship over local funds. It goes against every 
principle that the majority claims to support when it cites the 
Constitution. It goes against the accepted practice, a practice you can 
do nothing about in the States, where 17 States have, of course, spent 
their own local funds on abortions for poor women for decades, 
recognizing that this could not be done with Federal money.
  The District of Columbia does not ask for 1 cent of Federal money. In 
the same way, the District of Columbia demands that its local funds be 
kept local for us as for every other jurisdiction of this body.

                                   Congressional Black Caucus,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2011.
       Dear Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Feinstein, Gillibrand, 
     Hagan, Klobuchar, Landrieu, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murray, 
     Shaheen, and Stabenow: We, the women of the Congressional 
     Black Caucus, write for two reasons. First, we want to 
     express our gratitude to you, the Democratic women of the 
     Senate, for successfully blocking the Planned Parenthood 
     rider from the final fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution 
     (CR). The rider was an attack on the health and lives of all 
     American women, especially women of modest means. The public 
     conditioning of your support for the CR on the exclusion of 
     the rider made the critical difference. We agreed with your 
     strong position, which showed the country that you would not 
     abandon women in a tough fight. Although our party is in the 
     minority in the House, we are ready to join with you to 
     defeat future Republican attacks on women's health.
       However, we are deeply disappointed that low-income women 
     in the District of Columbia were sacrificed during the CR 
     negotiations. The Administration and Senate Democratic 
     Leadership agreed to re-impose a rider prohibiting the 
     District government from spending its own local taxpayer-
     raised funds on abortions for low-income women. The poor 
     women in the District have already begun to feel the terrible 
     effects of the rider. Abortions are time-sensitive, and 
     scores of women scheduled for District-funded abortions at a 
     Planned Parenthood clinic immediately had their appointments 
     canceled. This paradox cannot be overlooked. Non- profits in 
     the District, including the DC Abortion Fund which helps D.C. 
     women pay for abortions, are desperately trying to raise 
     funds to mitigate the harm done by the rider.
       Not only did this concession by Democrats violate our 
     party's long-standing support for reproductive choice and for 
     the District's right to self-government, it was unnecessary. 
     As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has noted, fifty-nine 
     House Republicans voted against the CR. This means 36 
     Democratic votes were needed to reach 218 votes for passage. 
     According to media reports, most House Republicans who voted 
     against the CR did so because it did not cut enough spending, 
     not because of the absence of the Planned Parenthood or of 
     any other rider. In fact, the CR was remarkably clean, with 
     only four riders. Only two were controversial, D.C. abortion 
     and a new private school voucher program in the District. It 
     is no wonder that the District felt abandoned.
       The D.C. abortion rider, as well as every other anti-home-
     rule rider, was removed during the last four years of 
     Democratic congressional control. This was a historic first 
     that could not have been achieved without your help. As the 
     fiscal year 2012 appropriations process begins, we believe it 
     would be invaluable if you stated, early and publicly, your 
     opposition to the inclusion of the D.C. abortion rider in the 
     fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. This is perhaps the 
     only way to keep it out of the bill after Democrats agreed to 
     it in the CR. Such a statement would not only help in fiscal 
     year 2012, it would discourage House Republicans from 
     escalating their attacks on women in the District, which are 
     already underway.
       An odious anti-choice bill, H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding 
     for Abortion Act), is due on the House floor this week. It 
     would make the D.C. abortion rider permanent. Although we 
     know you will not allow H.R. 3 to pass in the Senate, House 
     Republicans may feel emboldened to bring up a permanent D.C. 
     abortion ban as a stand-alone bill or to attach it to another 
     bill. The consideration of H.R. 3 on the House floor could 
     provide you an occasion to speak out against it and to note 
     the D.C. provision as a special reason for your opposition. 
     You could also use this opportunity to indicate your 
     opposition to a D.C. abortion rider in the fiscal year 2012 
     appropriations bill.
       District women have no vote in Congress and no 
     representation in the Senate. The city's low-income women 
     need the support of women in Congress who not only have a 
     vote, but who have also shown they will stand with women 
     everywhere.
           Sincerely,
         Barbara Lee, Karen Bass, Donna Christensen, Eddie Bernice 
           Johnson, Corrine Brown, Yvette Clarke, Donna Edwards, 
           Sheila Jackson Lee, Laura Richardson, Terri Sewell, 
           Marcia Fudge, Gwen Moore, Maxine Waters, Frederica 
           Wilson, Members of Congress.
                                  ____



                                         District of Columbia,

                                                      May 4, 2011.
       Dear Members of Congress: I write to express my outrage 
     with legislation that is pending before the House of 
     Representatives, H.R. 3, which contains language extremely 
     offensive to the District of Columbia. I ask you to withdraw 
     the bill from consideration immediately.
       H.R. 3 purports to limit the use of taxpayer funds for a 
     constitutionally protected activity, but in truth, it goes 
     much further in its effects on the District of Columbia. The 
     language used in the bill converts the District into a 
     Federal property for the first time in its history. This 
     unprecedented affront to the sovereignty of a local and state 
     government would never be contemplated anywhere else in the 
     United States. Yet, the District is particularly singled out 
     in the bill for such treatment.
       This effort to alter the entire status of the District 
     Government is truly beyond the pale. The District of Columbia 
     is comprised of 600,000 people who deserve the same rights as 
     other citizens and residents of their nation. American 
     history is defined as resistance to oppression while 
     promoting freedom and democracy. Given the principles upon 
     which this nation was founded, and America contrives to 
     promote steadfastly world-wide, how can you justify the 
     disparate and disrespectful treatment to which District 
     residents are subjected?
       The Constitution guarantees every citizen of age a direct 
     line of communication to the highest levels of our 
     representative government so that their interests are always 
     heard and protected. Our interests are not being protected, 
     they are being stripped from us. As an elected member of the 
     national government, we implore you not to further encroach 
     upon the rights of the people who live in our city.
       I cannot urge you strongly enough to remove the District 
     from this bill as we are not a component of the federal 
     government.
           Regards,
                                                  Vincent C. Gray,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                                    Council of the


                                         District of Columbia,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2011.
     Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Minority Leader Pelosi: We write in strong opposition 
     to H.R. 3, the misleadingly named ``No Taxpayer Funding for 
     Abortion Act,'' because it has nothing to do with federal 
     funds. The bill would prohibit the District of Columbia from 
     using its own, locally-raised funds to support abortion 
     services for low-income women.
       The bill would overturn the rule of local government. 
     Republicans and Democrats nationwide believe that local 
     governments should decide what is best with respect to local 
     issues. This belief is bedrock American principle that 
     extends from the original Founding Fathers to today's Tea 
     Party activists. It is also the principle underlying your own 
     Home Rule Act for the District--the purpose of which is ``to 
     relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon 
     essentially local District matters.''
       H.R. 3 would make the District of Columbia the only 
     jurisdiction in the country that is prohibited from choosing 
     whether or not to use its own locally-raised funds to support 
     low-income abortion services. It would be a Pyrrhic victory 
     for abortion opponents, as it does nothing to affect 
     Congress' inability to overrule the 17 states that currently 
     fund abortion services for low-income residents.
       The 600,000 residents of the District have neither a voice 
     nor a vote in the Congress to defend against this renewed 
     assault that is H.R. 3. We urge members of Congress to 
     respect the District and the fundamental American principle 
     of local rule. We urge you to be helpful, not harmful, to our 
     efforts to improve public health and safety. We urge you to 
     vote against H.R. 3.
           Sincerely,
         Kwame R. Brown, Chairman; Phil Mendelson, Councilmember 
           At-Large; Sekou Biddle, Councilmember At-Large; David 
           Catania, Councilmember At-Large; Michael A. Brown, 
           Councilmember At-Large; Jim Graham, Councilmember Ward 
           1; Jack Evans, Councilmember Ward 2; Mary M. Cheh, 
           Councilmember Ward 3; Muriel Bowser, Councilmember Ward 
           4; Harry Thomas, Jr., Councilmember Ward 5; Tommy 
           Wells, Councilmember Ward 6; Yvette Alexander, 
           Councilmember Ward 7; Marion Barry, Councilmember Ward 
           8.

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

[[Page H3021]]

  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Before I begin my remarks, I just have to say that I am really 
shocked by the statement from my friend and colleague from the State of 
New Jersey as well when he basically makes the bold statement that 
basically by taking away a subsidy of sorts of what we're doing here, 
and that translates to a tax increase on an individual. Nothing, of 
course, is done in this legislation to that effect.
  I come to the floor today and rise in full support of H.R. 3, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I commend everyone who has worked on 
this, especially my other colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) not 
only for sponsoring the bill before us today but for being a leader on 
this important issue. You see, by passing this bill, what we really do 
is establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on subsidies for 
abortion and abortion coverage, while giving the doctors opposed to 
abortion certain protections to safeguard them from performing 
abortions against their will.

                              {time}  1320

  This is a commonsense bill. It is consistent with the opinions of the 
majority of Americans who have voiced opposition to Federal funding for 
abortion.
  See, I believe that the time has come to do away with the patchwork 
ban currently in place with a law that extends the Hyde amendment to 
all aspects of spending authority here in Congress.
  Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell 
you that cutting off funding to abortion services will only cause 
abortion rates to do what? Rise, they say, but just the opposite. In 
fact, published research by the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute 
shows what? That we would actually see a 25 percent decrease in 
abortions.
  Furthermore, contrary to what the opposition would have you believe, 
this legislation will not affect funding for family planning services. 
It will only prevent funding and subsidies for abortion and abortion 
coverage.
  So it's important to point out that taxpayers across the country do 
not believe that they should be funding abortion coverage. Well, just 
last week in Indiana, Governor Daniels signed probably the most 
comprehensive taxpayer protection law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT. As I was saying, just last week in Indiana, the Governor 
signed probably the most comprehensive taxpayer protection law to 
prevent taxpayers from doing what? Subsidizing abortion. I was reading 
the article in the L.A. Times. They said this is probably going to go 
in other States. Why is that? Because it's the will of the people.
  Let me tell you and conclude on this. I'm the father of two beautiful 
girls. When I look at them, I see the promise of tomorrow. My life is, 
without question, better for the love I share with them. America is 
better for each child and life that is here.
  So I will come to this floor and continue to fight to protect the 
most fundamental right of the unborn in each of us: the right to life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to 
the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her 
leadership not only on this but so many important issues.
  I want to make it very clear, in response to the gentleman's 
statement, there are no taxpayer-funded abortions now. There weren't 
any yesterday, and there won't be any in the future. H.R. 3 goes far 
beyond current law. It is stunning in its scope, appalling in its 
indifference, and outrageous in its arrogance.
  The right to choose is absolutely meaningless without access to 
choice, and H.R. 3 creates obstacles for women to access safe, legal, 
and constitutionally protected health care. This makes access to 
abortion coverage incredibly difficult, and I would say that the bill 
is not only an attack on women's rights, but it is also an attack on 
the rights of the private insurance companies and small businesses.
  It tells private insurance companies how to run their businesses, 
raises compliance costs for small business, and even tells the local 
government how they may spend their money. The bill manages to offend 
nearly every high-sounding principle the other side says they stand 
for.
  So if you truly believe in the freedom of the individual and the 
wisdom of free market, vote ``no'' on this absolutely appalling piece 
of work. It is anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-respect, and anti-
business. It is a totally flawed bill, goes far further than any 
existing law, and it is the deepest and strongest attack on a woman's 
right to choose that has come before this body in my lifetime.
  And the Republican majority says its priority is jobs and job 
creation, but their actions speak louder than words. They want to come 
into the bedroom. They want to come between a woman and her doctor. It 
is an appalling bill. Please vote ``no.''
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
  Mr. FINCHER. I rise in support of the rule.
  Over 20 years ago, in his 1985 book, ``For Every Idle Silence,'' 
Congressman Hyde wrote ``It is becoming culturally fashionable to 
protect the defenseless unborn.'' Those words hold even truer today as 
polling continually shows the majority of Americans oppose the vast 
majority of abortions and more Americans consider themselves pro-life 
more than ever.
  Polls also show that a large majority of Americans oppose taxpayer 
subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage. An April 2011 CNN poll 
found that 61 percent of respondents opposed using public funds for 
abortion. A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed 61 percent of 
respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that 
includes abortion. A September 2009 International Communications 
Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed measure 
that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their 
Federal taxes.
  Our constituents and our conscience demand of us that we wait no 
longer. We must permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and 
protect the lives of unborn children.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate the privilege to come here to the floor and stand up for the 
rights of the innocent unborn in this country.
  At the root of this issue is the question of what is human life and 
is it sacred in all of its forms and at what instant does it begin, and 
I think all of us with a conscience will recognize that human life 
needs to be sacred in all of its forms and it begins at the instant of 
conception, and once we come to that conclusion we stand up to defend 
every voiceless innocent miracle that's on its way into breathing free 
air into this country.
  And to think that we are compelling the American taxpayer to fund 
abortions across this country and in foreign lands on occasion, because 
we can't quite hear that voice--Henry Hyde heard that voice, and we're 
standing up with and for Henry Hyde. I so much appreciate him and Chris 
Smith, who is the principal author of the underlying legislation.
  I rise in support of this rule, Madam Speaker, and I rise in support 
of the innocent unborn. The conscience of America must be heard in this 
debate today, on this rule and on the underlying bill. The voice of the 
voiceless need to be heard, that of those people who were not heard in 
the life we will hear from in the next, as Henry Hyde so eloquently 
said. But an America that is a pro-life America, with over 60 percent 
that oppose Federal funding, taxpayer-funded abortions, this is a 
consistent position that reflects the will of the American people. We 
must draw this line not just with Planned Parenthood but every abortion 
provider in the country. If they can't make it in the market on their 
own, we have no business subsidizing them without regard to the impact 
on our overall economy.
  Madam Speaker, I'm pleased and proud to be here today to take this 
stand, and I'm pleased and proud of the

[[Page H3022]]

entire Pro-Life Caucus that's here in the United States Congress, both 
Democrats and Republicans alike, who have done so much over the years 
to bring us to this point of consensus. And this is a consensus that 
will be reflected on this vote on the rule and on the vote on the 
underlying bill, a consensus of the American people with their 
resounding support for this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  I first want to remind people what we've said about statutory rape. 
When this bill was first introduced, it modified the long-standing rape 
exception to the Hyde amendment by adding the term ``forcible'' before 
the word ``rape.'' In other words, the victim of rape had to show 
wounds and other matters that she really was forcibly raped before she 
could be covered, but they changed that because there was such an 
outcry. But they have found another way to get to exclude other victims 
of rape. Just saying those words scandalizes me.
  The House Judiciary Committee report, which will be used by the 
courts to interpret the intent of this bill, says the bill will not 
allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of 
statutory rape, claiming that this reflects existing law, and of course 
it does not. Statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes 
because the young woman involved has not given consent and, indeed, is 
not allowed to because of her age. How dare we do that? Have they not 
suffered enough?
  The Hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any 
other kind of rape. In fact, a 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde 
amendment makes clear that it includes victims of statutory rape in the 
funding exemption.
  Now, if most people in the United States don't want their tax money 
used for abortions, they can relax. We've not been using tax money for 
38 years. We're not going to change that with this bill. That's not the 
intent of this bill at all. It's simply the title, which is 
meaningless.

                              {time}  1330

  What it does do is it increases taxes on middle class and lower-
income women and their families, but it singles out small business 
employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance 
coverage that includes abortion. Nearly two-thirds of all voters 
polled--this is two-thirds--oppose this draconian change in the tax 
system for small business and individuals with plans that cover 
abortion. In fact, even most Republicans, tea party supporters, anti-
abortion workers, and evangelical Christians oppose the tax increase.
  As the head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce 
wrote in a Hill column Monday: ``H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to 
the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to 
employees and eligible for the new tax credits'' that come from the new 
health care bill.

              [From The Hill's Congress Blog, May 2, 2011]

              H.R. 3 A Deliberate Attack on Small Business

                         (By Frank Knapp, Jr.)

       After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums 
     and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little 
     over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were 
     given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax 
     credits.
       Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase 
     this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate 
     the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care 
     Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for 
     abortion.
       The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that 
     are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance 
     have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill. 
     Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the 
     cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and 
     continuity of policy is very significant.
       Small business owners do not have the expertise to closely 
     examine healthcare plans to determine if abortion coverage is 
     included. Such services are not labeled ``abortion'' but 
     rather fall into numerous clauses in a health care policy 
     from prescription drugs to outpatient surgery to maternity 
     care that includes unforeseen complications. Small business 
     owners are no more prepared to completely understand the fine 
     print of their health insurance policies than members of 
     Congress.
       Requiring a small business owner to try to understand the 
     intricacies of their health insurance policies would require 
     considerable time on their own or with an insurance agent 
     (who also probably has no idea how to interpret the verbiage 
     in the policy as it relates to abortion). Essentially H.R. 3 
     will cause a small employer to divert time from running the 
     business. And if time is money, as we are all told, then H.R. 
     3 will be an increase in cost for small businesses offering 
     health insurance.
       Small businesses that finally determine that their health 
     insurance policy does in fact cover even one abortion service 
     will be financially punished in one of two ways. Either they 
     can keep their present policy and lose thousands of dollars 
     in hard won tax credits or they will give up their current 
     health plan and most likely have to pay higher premiums for a 
     new plan. The latter will result from both re-underwriting by 
     a new carrier and adding provisions now required in any new 
     policy. This is especially true since the health insurance 
     exchanges will not be in place until 2014 to increase 
     competition for this business.
       H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of 
     small businesses now offering health insurance to employees 
     and eligible for the new tax credits. Targeting small 
     businesses for such punitive action, while ignoring big 
     businesses that also receive tax benefits when offering 
     health insurance, demonstrates a callous disregard for the 
     ``backbone of our economy'', as members of Congress love to 
     proclaim.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I need to correct one thing. The word 
``forcible'' is nowhere in the statute or the legislation as we have it 
on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
have you believe that H.R. 3 is about taking away a woman's right to 
choose. That is simply not true. H.R. 3 is about ensuring that 
taxpayers aren't on the hook for paying for that choice. My Democratic 
colleagues would have you believe that we want to raise your taxes and 
allow the IRS to audit women. Again, that is simply not true. The bill 
is about one thing: keeping our tax dollars from being spent for 
elective abortions on demand.
  The United States is currently borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we 
spend. We are in debt and spending money we don't have. We need to 
focus on bringing our government back to its core mission. You can't 
tell me that paying for elective abortions is part of our core mission.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 177, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               YEAS--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan

[[Page H3023]]


     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--177

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Costa
     Diaz-Balart
     Emerson
     Giffords
     Johnson, Sam
     Lummis
     Nunnelee
     Pingree (ME)
     Thompson (PA)

                              {time}  1356

  Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado, GARY G. MILLER of California, and HELLER 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 237, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 3) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and 
to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Pursuant to House Resolution 
237, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 112-71 is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                 H.R. 3

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``No 
     Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--the table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
       Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

   TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY-FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR 
                         CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

       Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions and 
           providing for conscience protections.
       Sec. 102. Amendment to table of chapters.

   TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION

       Sec. 201. Deduction for medical expenses not allowed for 
           abortions.
       Sec. 202. Disallowance of refundable credit for coverage 
           under qualified health plan which provides coverage for 
           abortion.
       Sec. 203. Disallowance of small employer health insurance 
           expense credit for plan which includes coverage for 
           abortion.
       Sec. 204. Distributions for abortion expenses from certain 
           accounts and arrangements included in gross income.

   TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY-FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR 
                         CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING 
                   FOR CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.

       Title 1, United States Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new chapter:

 ``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR 
                         CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

``Sec.
``301. Prohibition on funding for abortions.
``302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover 
              abortion.
``303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees.
``304. Construction relating to separate coverage.
``305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health 
              coverage.
``306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws.
``307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion.
``308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving 
              the life of the mother.
``309. Application to District of Columbia.
``310. No government discrimination against certain health care 
              entities.

     ``Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions

       ``No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and 
     none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
     authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended 
     for any abortion.

     ``Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans 
       that cover abortion

       ``None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal 
     law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds 
     are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be 
     expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage 
     of abortion.

     ``Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees

       ``No health care service furnished--
       ``(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by 
     the Federal Government; or
       ``(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the 
     Federal Government to provide health care services within the 
     scope of the physician's or individual's employment,
     may include abortion.

     ``Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting 
     any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing 
     separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that 
     includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for 
     entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by 
     Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using 
     matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, 
     including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid 
     matching funds.

     ``Sec. 305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal 
       funds for health coverage

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting 
     the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage 
     provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of a 
     State or locality to contract separately with such a provider 
     for such coverage, so long as only funds not authorized or 
     appropriated by Federal law are used and such coverage shall 
     not be purchased using matching funds required for a 
     federally subsidized program, including a State's or 
     locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

     ``Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any 
     effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law 
     imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or 
     for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of 
     abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.  

     ``Sec. 307. Construction relating to complications arising 
       from abortion

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to 
     the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or disorder 
     that has been caused by or exacerbated by the performance of 
     an abortion. This rule of construction shall be applicable 
     without regard to whether the abortion was performed in 
     accord with Federal or State law, and without regard to 
     whether funding for the abortion is permissible under section 
     308.

     ``Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, 
       or preserving the life of the mother

       ``The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 
     shall not apply to an abortion--

[[Page H3024]]

       ``(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       ``(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as 
     certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death 
     unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering 
     physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy 
     itself.

     ``Sec. 309. Application to District of Columbia

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Any reference to funds appropriated by Federal law 
     shall be treated as including any amounts within the budget 
     of the District of Columbia that have been approved by Act of 
     Congress pursuant to section 446 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (or any applicable successor Federal law).
       ``(2) The term `Federal Government' includes the government 
     of the District of Columbia.

     ``Sec. 310. No government discrimination against certain 
       health care entities

       ``(a) Nondiscrimination.--A Federal agency or program, and 
     any State or local government that receives Federal financial 
     assistance (either directly or indirectly), may not subject 
     any individual or institutional health care entity to 
     discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does 
     not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for 
     abortions.
       ``(b) Health Care Entity Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `health care entity' includes an individual 
     physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a 
     provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance 
     organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of 
     health care facility, organization, or plan.
       ``(c) Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The courts of the United States shall 
     have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened 
     violations of this section by issuing any form of legal or 
     equitable relief, including--
       ``(A) injunctions prohibiting conduct that violates this 
     section; and
       ``(B) orders preventing the disbursement of all or a 
     portion of Federal financial assistance to a State or local 
     government, or to a specific offending agency or program of a 
     State or local government, until such time as the conduct 
     prohibited by this section has ceased.
       ``(2) Commencement of action.--An action under this 
     subsection may be instituted by--
       ``(A) any health care entity that has standing to complain 
     of an actual or threatened violation of this section; or
       ``(B) the Attorney General of the United States.
       ``(d) Administration.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall designate the Director of the Office for Civil 
     Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services--
       ``(1) to receive complaints alleging a violation of this 
     section;
       ``(2) subject to paragraph (3), to pursue the investigation 
     of such complaints in coordination with the Attorney General; 
     and
       ``(3) in the case of a complaint related to a Federal 
     agency (other than with respect to the Department of Health 
     and Human Services) or program administered through such 
     other agency or any State or local government receiving 
     Federal financial assistance through such other agency, to 
     refer the complaint to the appropriate office of such other 
     agency.''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CHAPTERS.

       The table of chapters for title 1, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``4. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions and providing for conscience 
    protections..............................................301''.....

   TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION

     SEC. 201. DEDUCTION FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES NOT ALLOWED FOR 
                   ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Amounts Paid for Abortion Not Taken Into Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount paid during the taxable year 
     for an abortion shall not be taken into account under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) an abortion--
       ``(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest, or
       ``(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as 
     certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death 
     unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering 
     physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy, 
     and
       ``(B) the treatment of any infection, injury, disease, or 
     disorder that has been caused by or exacerbated by the 
     performance of an abortion.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. DISALLOWANCE OF REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE 
                   UNDER QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN WHICH PROVIDES 
                   COVERAGE FOR ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 36B(c)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``or any health 
     plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any 
     abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2))''.
       (b) Option To Purchase or Offer Separate Coverage or 
     Plan.--Paragraph (3) of section 36B(c) of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Separate abortion coverage or plan allowed.--
       ``(i) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
     Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting 
     any individual from purchasing separate coverage for 
     abortions described in such subparagraph, or a health plan 
     that includes such abortions, so long as no credit is allowed 
     under this section with respect to the premiums for such 
     coverage or plan.
       ``(ii) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in 
     subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal health 
     insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering 
     separate coverage for abortions described in such 
     subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long 
     as premiums for such separate coverage or plan are not paid 
     for with any amount attributable to the credit allowed under 
     this section (or the amount of any advance payment of the 
     credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 203. DISALLOWANCE OF SMALL EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   EXPENSE CREDIT FOR PLAN WHICH INCLUDES COVERAGE 
                   FOR ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 45R of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Any term'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Exclusion of health plans including coverage for 
     abortion.--The terms `qualified health plan' and `health 
     insurance coverage' shall not include any health plan or 
     benefit that includes coverage for abortions (other than any 
     abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ABORTION EXPENSES FROM CERTAIN 
                   ACCOUNTS AND ARRANGEMENTS INCLUDED IN GROSS 
                   INCOME.

       (a) Flexible Spending Arrangements Under Cafeteria Plans.--
     Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections (l) 
     and (m), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (j) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Abortion Reimbursement From Flexible Spending 
     Arrangement Included in Gross Income.--Notwithstanding 
     section 105(b), gross income shall include any reimbursement 
     for expenses incurred for an abortion (other than any 
     abortion or treatment described in section 213(g)(2)) from a 
     health flexible spending arrangement provided under a 
     cafeteria plan. Such reimbursement shall not fail to be a 
     qualified benefit for purposes of this section merely as a 
     result of such inclusion in gross income.''.
       (b) Archer MSAs.--Paragraph (1) of section 220(f) of such 
     Code is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that any such amount used to pay for an 
     abortion (other than any abortion or treatment described in 
     section 213(g)(2)) shall be included in the gross income of 
     such holder''.
       (c) HSAs.--Paragraph (1) of section 223(f) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that any such amount used to pay for an 
     abortion (other than any abortion or treatment described in 
     section 213(g)(2)) shall be included in the gross income of 
     such beneficiary''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) FSA reimbursements.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to expenses incurred with respect to taxable 
     years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Distributions from savings accounts.--The amendments 
     made by subsection (b) and (c) shall apply to amounts paid 
     with respect to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, with 
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee of the Judiciary, 10 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and 10 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?

[[Page H3025]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), 
the chief sponsor of H.R. 3, for his persistent leadership over the 
years on this issue.

                              {time}  1400

  Many Members and the American people have strong feelings about the 
subject of abortion, but one thing is clear: The Federal funding of 
abortion will lead to more abortions. For example, in 2009, there were 
only 220 government-financed abortions. The Congressional Budget Office 
has estimated that the Federal Government would pay for as many as 
675,000 abortions each year without the Hyde Amendment and other 
provisions that prevent the Federal funding of abortion.
  The American people do not want federally funded abortions. A Zogby 
poll found that 77 percent of Americans feel that Federal funds should 
never pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the 
mother. That is the policy of the Hyde Amendment, which H.R. 3 would 
enact into law.
  H.R. 3 does not ban abortion. It also does not restrict abortions or 
abortion coverage in health care plans as long as those abortions or 
plans use only private or State funds. This legislation places no 
additional legal restrictions on abortions. It simply protects 
taxpayers from having to fund or to subsidize something they morally 
oppose. H.R. 3 also is necessary to fix the recent health care law. 
Absolutely nothing in that law prevents the Federal funding of 
abortions under the programs it creates.
  Neither Congress nor the administration should take the view that 
they know better than the American people what is good for them. 
Congress should pass H.R. 3 to codify the longstanding ban on the 
Federal funding of abortions.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker and Members of the House, the problem with this bill is 
that it reaches far beyond Federal funding in that it subjects women to 
profound government intrusion, that it restricts women's access to 
health care, and that it targets small businesses for disparate 
treatment under the Tax Code. That's why I have more than a dozen 
organizations, ranging from the American Nurses Association to the 
YWCA, which are all opposed to this legislation. In addition, this bill 
will punish women for their private health care decisions, and will 
subject them to profound government intrusion. So this is not a 
Democrat versus Republican issue. It is a very important personal 
decision.
  Now, the goal of this bill--and I'd like to suggest it from the 
outset of this discussion--is to make it impossible to obtain abortion 
services even when paid for with purely private, non-Federal funds. If 
there is anyone who has a different view about this, I hope that it 
gets expressed this afternoon.
  Finally, H.R. 3 subjects small businesses to disparate treatment 
under the tax laws; and as one who supports small business and workers 
in this country, that alone would turn my support against this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the Crime Subcommittee 
of the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today we are presented with an opportunity to take a 
giant step toward protecting the unborn. For almost 35 years, 
restrictions on the use of Federal funds for abortion have been enacted 
separately and have been contained in annually renewed congressional 
temporary funding restrictions, regulations and Executive orders. Such 
policies have sought to ensure that the American taxpayer does not fund 
the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. The 
legislation on the floor today will end the need for numerous separate 
abortion funding policies, and will finally put into place a permanent 
ban on any U.S. Government financial support for abortion.
  Each year, the abortion industry is allocated millions of tax dollars 
to advance its agenda. Last year alone, the Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America collected more than 360 million taxpayer-funded 
dollars. Because all money is fungible, when taxpayers pay an 
organization like Planned Parenthood millions of dollars, we cannot 
help but empower and promote all of that organization's activities. 
Taxpaying Americans are fed up. They are tired of their hard-earned 
money being spent on supporting and promoting the abortion industry.
  Under H.R. 3, Federal funds will be prohibited for elective abortion 
coverage through any program in the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services. The legislation prevents the funding for abortion as a method 
of family planning overseas. It prohibits funding for elective abortion 
coverage for Federal employees, and it prevents taxpayer-funded 
abortions in Washington, D.C.
  Importantly, H.R. 3 would also protect the conscience-driven health 
care providers from being forced by the government to participate in 
abortions. The conscience clause is critically needed in order to 
protect health care providers who do not want to take part in the 
abortion business. Without it, people could be forced to participate in 
something they strongly believe to be morally wrong. Faith-based 
hospitals could lose funding and be forced to close.
  It is time to end taxpayer-funded abortions. I strongly support this 
important and needed approach to preserve and promote the sanctity of 
life in our country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to 
the former chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry 
Nadler of New York.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, 
reducing our deficit or bolstering our economy. It addresses, instead, 
the completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent 
the Federal funding of abortion services. This bill has been falsely 
advertised as a mere codification of existing law prohibiting the 
Federal funding of abortion.
  I have always opposed the unfair restrictions on Federal funding for 
a perfectly legal health care procedure, but this bill goes far beyond 
prohibiting Federal funding. The real purpose and effect of this bill 
is to eliminate private health care choices for women by imposing 
significant tax penalties on families and small businesses when they 
use their own money to pay for health insurance or medical care. This 
tax penalty is intended to drive insurance companies into dropping 
abortion services from existing private health care policies that women 
and families now have and rely upon.
  This bill claims that a tax credit or deduction is a form of 
government funding. It follows that tax-deductible charitable 
contributions to a church, synagogue or other religious institution are 
also government funding--a position my Republican colleagues have never 
taken and that, if taken, would prohibit tax deductions for charitable 
contributions to religious organizations because they would then be 
violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
  You can't have it both ways. Either tax exemptions, deductions or 
credits for private spending are government funding or they are not. If 
they are not, this bill makes no sense. If they are, then tax-
deductible private contributions to religious institutions are 
government funding prohibited by the Constitution.
  The power to tax is the power to destroy, and here, the taxing power 
is being used to destroy the right of every American to make private 
health care decisions free from government interference. This bill is 
an unprecedented attack on the use of private funds to make private 
health care choices, and is part of the new House majority's broader 
and disturbing attack on women's access to health care.
  After 2 years of hearing my Republican colleagues complain that 
government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in 
private health care choices, I am astounded by this legislation, which 
is so obviously designed to do just that. It seems that

[[Page H3026]]

many Republicans believe in freedom provided that no one uses that 
freedom in a way that Republicans find objectionable. It is a strange 
understanding of freedom.
  There is also a provision in this bill that might allow any health 
care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a 
woman whose life depends on having that abortion. They could let that 
woman die right there in the emergency room, and the government would 
be powerless to do anything. In fact, if the government insisted that 
the hospital not let the woman die, the bill would allow the hospital 
to sue the government and, in the case of a State or locality, strip 
that community of all Federal funding until the jurisdiction relented.

                              {time}  1410

  Despite the fact that Republicans made a big show of taking out 
language limiting rape to forcible rape, the committee report now says 
that the bill still excludes victims of statutory rape in order to 
close a ``loophole.'' That is right. You women who have been sexually 
victimized are really just a loophole. Frankly, disgusting.
  A vote for this bill, Madam Speaker, is a vote for a tax increase on 
women, families, and small businesses. It is a vote for taking away the 
existing health insurance that women and families now have and pay for 
with their own funds. It is a vote to elevate the right to refuse care 
over the obligation to provide lifesaving care. It deserves to be 
defeated.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the chairman of the Constitution 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, it is said that a government is what it spends. This 
bill is really about whether the role of America's government is to 
fund a practice that takes the lives of over 1 million unborn American 
babies every year, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of 
Americans, even some of those who consider themselves pro-choice, 
strongly object to their taxpayer dollars being used to pay for 
abortions.
  In 1973, Madam Speaker, the United States Supreme Court said the 
unborn child was not a person under the Constitution and we have since 
witnessed the tragic deaths of over 50 million innocent little baby 
boys and girls who died without the protection we in this Chamber 
should have given them. Some of this was carried out with taxpayer 
dollars before the Hyde amendment and other such laws were in place, 
and taxpayer funding of abortion could recommence in the future under 
ObamaCare.
  So before we vote on this bill, it is important for Members to ask 
themselves the real question: Does abortion take the life of a child? 
If it does not, then this is simply a budgetary issue. But if abortion 
really does kill a little baby, then those of us sitting here in these 
chambers of freedom are presiding over the greatest human genocide in 
the history of humanity, and some of it may be financed in the future, 
Madam Speaker, with taxpayer dollars over which we will have had direct 
control.
  Madam Speaker, our Founding Fathers believed there were certain self-
evident truths that were worth holding on to. The greatest of those 
truths in their minds was the transcendent meaning of this gift of God 
called human life. Our Constitution says no person shall be deprived of 
life, liberty or property without due process of law. Thomas Jefferson 
said that ``The care of human life and its happiness and not its 
destruction is the chief and only object of good government.''
  Madam Speaker, protecting the lives and constitutional rights of our 
fellow Americans is why we are all here, and forcing taxpayers to pay 
for the indiscriminate killing of helpless little baby Americans is not 
good government and it should be ended once and for all.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. CHU. Imagine what life would be like for women under H.R. 3. 
Imagine you are pregnant and then diagnosed with breast cancer. Your 
doctor says that chemotherapy could save your life, but will 
permanently harm the baby. The diagnosis is devastating. But to add to 
your grief, because of H.R. 3, an abortion will not be covered by your 
private health insurance. You must pay out of pocket, even though it is 
necessary to save your life.
  Imagine IRS agents as abortion cops. You see, under H.R. 3 you 
couldn't deduct an abortion as a medical expense unless it were the 
result of rape or incest, even though you are using your own money and 
even though you can deduct every other medical procedure. Imagine the 
IRS knocking at your door demanding receipts and grilling you about 
your rape.
  This bill forces women to live their lives as if America was Orwell's 
1984, where big brother Washington bureaucrats dictate the personal and 
private health decisions of American families.
  Stop these attacks on women. Oppose H.R. 3.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Intellectual 
Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the 
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I have long believed that the 
right to life is one that we must vigorously protect, and I have 
cosponsored many bills to do that, including the Right to Life Act last 
Congress.
  While there are many divergent views on this topic, one thing that 
most agree on is that it is wholly improper for the Federal Government 
to use taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to fund abortions. This is a 
moral issue of the highest importance to many taxpayers and to force 
them to fund these activities is completely unacceptable. For many 
Americans, taxpayer-funded abortions would constitute an extreme 
violation of conscience that should not be sanctioned by this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith, for first introducing and then advancing this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a strong progressive in this 
Congress.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, for the last 18 years as a Member of this body I have 
listened to Republicans go on and on about keeping government out of 
the health care system. That and taking away the voice of women 
actually puts the government between that woman and her most private 
health care decisions and is the biggest, the most intrusive government 
of all.
  I thought my Republican friends hated taxes, but apparently they hate 
reproductive freedom and women's rights even more, because this bill 
would raise taxes on small businesses that provide their employees with 
health plans that include abortion coverage. And in one of its most 
egregious provisions, this bill could lead to IRS audits of women who 
seek abortion care after they have had a sexual assault. Absolutely 
unconscionable. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and also chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chair 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Look, life is precious, life is sacred, and government should protect 
that basic fact. It is not some grant from government. It is a gift 
from God. Our founders understood that when they talked about the 
creator giving us this inalienable right, and the fact that we live in 
the greatest Nation in history and our tax dollars are used to destroy 
the life of unborn children is just plain wrong.
  This bill corrects that. This bill is what the American people want, 
and this bill is consistent with this great Nation, founded on life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is why it should pass and 
that is why I am a proud sponsor and urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
legislation.

[[Page H3027]]

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Braley).
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If you remember only one thing about this bill, remember this: It is 
a solution in search of a problem. The simple truth is that there are 
no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions. None. Zero. Nada.
  Don't be fooled by this bill. It isn't about funding. It is about 
preventing women from being able to access comprehensive health care. 
That is what this bill is about. The debate is about whether 
politicians sitting in Congress should dictate the personal, private 
medical decisions of the American people. It aims to impose intrusive 
government rules on personal medical decisions.
  The bill's supporters don't want abortion, any abortion, to be legal 
in the United States, and so they are adding as many bureaucratic rules 
as they can come up with. This bill would not allow an exception for 
rape and incest for women in the military and military dependents.

                              {time}  1420

  Think about that. Military studies in news reports suggest that the 
sexual assault in the military is unconscionably high. CBS News 
reported that one in three military women experience sexual assault 
during their career in the service. One in three. This is outrageous. 
And yet under this bill, those brave women who took an oath to defend 
and support the Constitution of this country and put their lives on the 
line every day, if they are sexually assaulted by a peer and become 
pregnant, would not have an opportunity to get an abortion under this 
rule.
  That's what we're talking about today. And that is the contrast 
between these two philosophies of the role of government and the 
personal-private medical decisions of women. And that is why I ask my 
colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I want to thank Chris Smith and Chairman Smith for this 
very simple but profound bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen, all this bill does is end public funding--
taxpayer funding--of abortion. The driving force behind H.R. 3 is 
simply to update the longstanding Hyde amendment and apply it to 
programs that are federally funded but outside the scope of the Labor-
HHS appropriations as well as replace a patchwork system with permanent 
law. It takes the Hyde amendment, the Dornan amendment, the Helms 
amendment, the Hyde-Weldon amendment, as well as others, and makes them 
permanent. That's what the bill does.
  H.R. 3 enjoys great bipartisan support and had over 227 cosponsors. 
The support of this bill is in the public's hands. A CNN poll recently 
taken last month said 61 percent of the respondents do not want their 
tax dollars used to pay for abortions. And that's what this bill does. 
It ends the public funding of abortions. There are a host of other 
polls that clearly state the same thing.
  The Hyde amendment is in current law but it simply needs to be 
broadened for all the things that we do here in Congress.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this very important bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from 
California, Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE. I want to thank our ranking member for his leadership and 
for leading for so many years on so many important issues.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. Instead of working on creating jobs 
and jump-starting the economy, we're debating another cynical and 
divisive attempt to strip away the rights of women. Republicans 
continue to perpetrate their war on women while millions of people 
around the country are desperate for jobs to help provide for their 
families. Let me be clear. Current law already bans Federal funds from 
being used for abortions. That is a fact--even though I personally 
think we should get rid of that ban.
  What's next? Are we going to block transportation funding because it 
might be used to build a road to a hospital that provides a road to 
abortion? Come on. By the logic of this bill, any type of Federal 
funding, whether it's health related or not, would become abortion 
money. That is such a cynical ploy on the majority side.
  This bill specifically attacks low-income women in the District of 
Columbia by permanently prohibiting the District from spending its 
purely local funds on abortions for low-income women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. LEE. These women in the District have already begun to feel the 
terrible effects of the rider passed already in the CR. This is 
outrageous. It's ideologically driven and it's dangerous.
  So let's reject this bill and this attack and this dangerous war on 
women, especially low-income women. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee 
and the vice chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion Act.
  I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. But I 
also believe it's morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of 
millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund a procedure that they 
find morally offensive. Fortunately, for over 30 years, a patchwork of 
policies has regulated Federal funding and denied Federal funding for 
abortion in America.
  But today, thanks to the yeoman's work of Congressman Chris Smith of 
New Jersey and Congressman Dan Lipinski, we're bringing forward a 
bipartisan measure that will send a clear and strong and codified 
message that the American people don't want to allow public funding of 
abortion at the Federal level. I strongly support it.
  The man who first brought this idea before the Congress was the late 
Henry Hyde. I had the privilege of serving with him. His eloquence 
cannot be matched, but it can be repeated. Henry said, ``I believe 
nothing in this world of wonders is more beautiful than the innocence 
of a child, that little, almost-born infant struggling to live as a 
member of the human family; and abortion is a lethal assault against 
the very idea of human rights and destroys, along with a defenseless 
little baby, the moral foundation of our democracy.''
  Today, we say ``yes'' to life but we also say ``yes'' to respecting 
the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans who, wherever they 
stand on this divisive social question, stand broadly for the principle 
that no taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize abortion at home 
or abroad. H.R. 3 is that legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It has been mistakenly repeated at least a dozen times on the floor 
that without this bill Federal funds could be used for abortion. I want 
it to be clear on the Record that that is incorrect. I'm sorry that I 
have to make this statement.
  This legislation subjects women to profound government intrusion. It 
restricts women's access to health care, and it targets small 
businesses for additional taxing under our IRS Code.
  There are many, many organizations that are opposed to this 
legislation: The American Nurses Association, the American Civil 
Liberties Union, the American Congress of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, Catholics for Choice, the Equal Health Network, the 
Human Rights Campaign, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners, 
the National Organization of Women, the National Women's Law Center, 
People for the American Way, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United 
Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the YWCA, plus 
numerous others.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

[[Page H3028]]

  Mr. AMASH. Free societies are founded on a core set of rights--rights 
that are beyond the reach of government and that no other person or 
group can take away. The Founders created our government to secure 
these unalienable rights, and chief among them is the right to life.
  President's recognize this right when they weigh carefully whether to 
put our soldiers in harm's way. Our judiciary respects this right when 
it spends years reviewing each and every capital punishment case. Yet 
this same government authorizes, and in some cases pays for, the 
routine taking of the most innocent of lives--the lives of the unborn.
  It is unconscionable that in a country founded explicitly to protect 
individuals' fundamental rights we allow the regular violation of the 
right to life. Worse yet, the government forces each of us to pay for 
the killing of innocent life.
  I urge you to vote for H.R. 3, to strengthen our protection of the 
right to life.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
minority whip from Maryland, Steny Hoyer.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Two minutes, of course, is not time enough to discuss this issue, but 
I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation.
  With millions out of work, the American people sent Congress a strong 
mandate in the last election: take action on jobs. Yet after 4 months 
in the House majority, Republicans have yet to put forward a jobs 
agenda. What are they doing instead? They are pursuing a controversial 
social agenda, one that is far too extreme for most Americans.
  Let me say something to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle. Some of you, I think, 
probably characterize yourselves as libertarians, or close to 
libertarians. You believe the government ought to stay out of people's 
lives. I think that's a worthwhile premise. I have been here for, as 
some of you know, a long time, some 30 years; and I have heard 
Republicans say so often, it's their money, let them keep their money, 
they know better how to spend their money.
  So what do you do today, my friends? What you say is, well, it's your 
money, and, yes, we'll give you a tax credit, if you spend it the way 
we want you to spend it. That's what this legislation says: it's your 
money, but if you don't spend it the way we want you to spend it, we 
will not give you the tax credit that every other American can get.
  How far can you take that, my friends? In tax preference after tax 
preference after tax preference, we can say, you don't get it if you 
don't spend it the way we want you to spend it. I want you to think 
about that. I want you to think about the precedent that you're setting 
here, the social activism that you are embarking upon, on the 
imposition of your views on others through the Tax Code.
  My friends, this bill undermines, more than any bill that I have 
seen, the rights of women under the Constitution of the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. May I have 1 additional minute?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Stingy, aren't you? I miss my 1 minute, ladies and 
gentlemen, I tell you that. The public won't know what I'm talking 
about, of course.
  But the fact of the matter is this bill is bad public policy, it's 
bad for women's health, and it's bad for America. Vote ``no'' on this 
bill. Let freedom ring.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
today. Clearly, there is one clear issue before us in H.R. 3, and it is 
whether or not Americans shall be required to fund the taking of 
innocent human life.
  It has been indicated that this is controversial, and it certainly 
is; but without a doubt the American people demand they not be required 
to subsidize abortion.
  The second issue here, Madam Speaker, is the question that over and 
over we've heard from my colleagues that they would like to see 
abortion rare. That is what this bill does. With the subsidization of 
abortion, it expands. This bill will limit the payments and restrict 
and prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer dollars for the funding of 
abortion. That's what this bill does.
  Madam Speaker, again it is very clear, and, contrary to the claims of 
the opponents of this bill, it is very simple. Americans should not be 
required to pay for abortions. H.R. 3 accomplishes this objective. I 
encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3, but I also rise in 
great disappointment that the people's House is again engaging in a 
debate about the rights of women rather than a discussion about the 
challenges our Nation faces.
  For months, Democrats have urged this body to refocus its efforts on 
jobs; yet since the Congress convened in January, the Republican 
majority has failed to bring to the floor any measures to help create 
jobs. Their negligence is showing. Instead of working in a bipartisan 
way to regain America's economic strength, we again find ourselves on 
the floor in a divisive debate over women's reproductive freedoms.
  That's right. Rather than wage a war on unemployment, my Republican 
colleagues are waging a war on women's health.
  Under this legislation's logic, anyone who has government-subsidized 
insurance coverage--which is really everyone who has private health 
insurance, for we exempt employers from paying taxes on health 
benefits--would be forbidden from abortion.
  Where does it end? The answer is it doesn't end. Even in the face of 
overwhelming support for women's rights among the American people, even 
in the face of more pressing challenges, real challenges like the jobs 
crisis, nothing stops my Republican colleagues from their assault on a 
woman's right to choose.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is also the chairman of the Republican 
Conference.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I rise to proudly support H.R. 3 for 
three simple reasons:
  Number one, this bill just simply helps codify what has de facto been 
our policy for 35 years through the Hyde amendment, and that is a 
policy that no way, shape or form outlaws abortion; it simply says 
Federal taxpayers will not be compelled to subsidize them.
  Second of all, Madam Speaker, at a time when our Nation is going 
broke, where we're borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from 
the Chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, 
maybe, maybe those programs that have the least consensus and are most 
divisive among us ought to be the first to lose their taxpayer 
subsidies.
  Third, and most importantly and profoundly for me, Madam Speaker, in 
my heart and in my head, I can come to no other conclusion but that 
life begins at conception. It is our most fundamental right, enshrined 
in the Constitution. No taxpayer should be compelled against their will 
to subsidize the loss of human life, truly the least of these.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlelady from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
overreaching legislation, which raises taxes, threatens the health of 
our economy, and endangers women's health.
  This bill will raise taxes on small businesses that offer 
comprehensive health coverage for women. It will punish perfectly legal 
private health decisions by raising taxes on plans that offer coverage 
for abortion. Eighty-seven percent of private health plans will be 
impacted by this unprecedented assault, and Americans will see their 
health insurance options restricted or taken away.

[[Page H3029]]

  With this legislation, we have yet another example of the majority's 
real priorities, not to create jobs, not to grow the economy, not to 
reduce the deficit but to advance a divisive social agenda by 
manipulating the Tax Code.
  And they're doing more than just raising taxes. Rather than trusting 
women, like the majority of Americans do, the House majority is trying 
to force women back into traditional roles. They are risking their very 
health. The report that accompanied this bill goes even further; it 
tries to redefine rape and narrow the exception for sexual assault.
  This bill is unconscionable, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. 
Let's create jobs. We should not be raising taxes and putting women's 
lives at risk to appease an ideological agenda.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, a large majority of Americans oppose 
taxpayer subsidies for abortion. Those who oppose this bill, including 
the President, claim that it denies access to health care for women. My 
message to them is simple: the majority of women are opposed to having 
their hard-earned tax dollars spent on abortion. In a recent survey, it 
was found that 70 percent of women oppose taxpayer funding for 
abortion.
  We must permanently end this practice. It is our duty to act and to 
act now. I urge my colleagues to listen to the majority of Americans 
who strongly oppose publicly funding abortion services and pass this 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey, Rob Andrews.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Members who are pro-life or pro-choice should oppose 
this bill because it does violence to the Constitution. This bill 
purports to say that through the Tax Code, we can favor or disfavor the 
exercise of constitutional rights.

                              {time}  1440

  That's not right, and that's not constitutional. The Members on the 
majority side would certainly not support, nor would I, a provision 
that says you can't take a charitable contribution to support a group 
that lobbies in favor of pro-life causes. But if we wanted to disfavor 
that point of view in the Tax Code, this is the way we would do it. 
There is no difference between what the majority's doing here and that 
odious provision that I just described.
  It is wrong to raise taxes on people who exercise their 
constitutional rights because they've chosen to exercise their 
constitutional rights. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you 
are pro-Constitution, you should vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
legislation.
  As of today, Congress prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds on 
abortions through a patchwork of riders on our annual appropriations 
bills. These riders include the Hyde amendment in Labor-HHS and other 
prohibitions in the State and Foreign Operations bill, the Financial 
Services bill, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, in addition to the 
Defense bill. Simply put, this legislation will eliminate the need for 
these annual riders to ensure that these policies become permanent 
statute.
  This bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause that would 
expand the policy to include all recipients of Federal funds. The 
conscience clause protects health care entities that choose not to 
provide abortions from discrimination by State, local, or Federal 
agencies that receive Federal funds. Therefore, no one who has deep 
religious or moral opposition to abortions should be forced to provide 
for them.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is also a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, my first daughter was born very 
prematurely. They rushed her over to Shreveport to the highest level 
intensive care. The neonatologist encouraged me, because my wife 
couldn't come, to caress her, talk to her, that it meant so much, even 
though she couldn't see me. She grabbed my finger and held it for 
hours. She wanted to cling to life.
  For those of us who think it's wrong to kill children in utero, it is 
even more wrong to pry money from our hands at the point of an IRS gun 
so that others can use our tax dollars to pay to kill those children.
  Please, let's stop it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to urge all of the Members of the House to please consider 
this issue from as an unemotional point of view as possible, to please 
determine in your hearts and in your mind about the fact that this bill 
goes over the top.
  I would now like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority 
leader, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his 
ongoing leadership on issues that relate to privacy and the health of 
America's women.
  Madam Speaker, today is approximately the 120th day of the Republican 
majority in the Congress of the United States; and in all those 120 
days, we have yet to see a jobs bill brought to the floor. We haven't 
even seen a jobs proposal or a jobs agenda. Instead, once again, we see 
a diversion. We see legislation which is extreme and divisive and 
harmful to women's health.
  I rise today to urge my Republican colleagues in the House to let us 
come together to work in a bipartisan way to address the number one 
priority of the American people, the creation of jobs; and I rise today 
as the Republicans bring to the floor this legislation instead of 
bringing to the floor a bill to end the subsidies for Big Oil. They 
gave the impression during the break that they would do that. I wrote 
to the Speaker; the President of the United States has written to the 
bipartisan leadership in Congress asking for an end to the subsidies to 
Big Oil. Instead of doing that, we are, again, undermining women's 
health.
  Let us begin this part of the debate with a clear understanding of 
the facts. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited under the 
law due to the Hyde amendment except in the cases of rape, incest, and 
life of the mother. Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. 
This bill is even a radical departure from the Hyde amendment. It 
represents an unprecedented and, again, radical assault on women's 
access to the full range of reproductive health care services. For the 
first time, this bill places restrictions on how women with private 
insurance can spend their private dollars in purchasing health 
insurance.
  This bill will deny tax credits for women who buy the type of health 
insurance that they currently have, health insurance that covers a full 
range of reproductive care. As a result, now, this is about businesses. 
If you're a woman and you have a job and your employer gives you health 
insurance, that employer will no longer be able to take a tax deduction 
from your health insurance--quite different from what happens with 
their male employees. And in that event, when that happens, health 
insurance companies will then roll back that coverage because there 
won't be enough people participating in the pool to justify that 
insurance. So there are millions of women who will no longer have 
access to insurance policies from their employer that cover all 
reproductive services.
  The practical result of this legislation for many is there will be a 
tax increase, a tax increase on small businesses and a tax increase on 
women based on how they choose to spend their private dollars simply 
for keeping the coverage they have right now.
  Even more of a problem, this legislation allows hospitals to deny 
life-saving care to women in moments of direst emergency. The bill 
would permit medical professionals to turn their back on women dying 
from treatable conditions. It is appalling.
  As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote in 
opposition to this effort: ``We oppose legislative proposals to limit 
women's access to any needed medical care. These

[[Page H3030]]

proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put 
government between a physician and a patient.''

                              {time}  1450

  Madam Speaker, let us not work to limit the care; let us expand it. 
Let us not raise taxes on small business and women; let us strengthen 
our middle class. Let us never attack the health of women; let us, 
instead, create jobs. That's what the American people expect us to do, 
and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this divisive and 
radical legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and express my 
support for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This 
commonsense bipartisan legislation codifies the Hyde amendment and 
similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of 
abortion across all Federal programs.
  Last year we listened to the American people through our America 
Speaking Out project, and they spoke out on this issue loudly and 
clearly. We included it in our Pledge to America, and today we are 
taking another step toward meeting that commitment and keeping our 
word.
  A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the American 
people and ought to be the law of the land. But the law, particularly 
as it is currently enforced, does not reflect the will of the American 
people. This has created additional uncertainty, given that Americans 
are concerned not just about how much we are spending but how we are 
spending it. Enacting this legislation would provide the American 
people with the assurance that their hard-earned tax dollars will not 
be used to fund abortions. And I want to commend the leadership of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chief sponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, for his great leadership. I want to 
thank Mr. Lipinski, prime cosponsor of H.R. 3. I want to thank the 
other distinguished chairmen, Dave Camp; and Fred Upton; our 
extraordinary Speaker, John Boehner, for his eloquent statement and for 
his compassion for both mothers and children who are hurt by abortions; 
and for Eric Cantor, our superb majority leader, and the 228 cosponsors 
of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public 
funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher 
Institute said in an analysis in 2009 that ``approximately one-fourth 
of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions (if the Hyde 
amendment did not exist) instead give birth when this funding is 
unavailable.'' In other words, when public funding and facilitation 
isn't available for abortion, children have a greater chance at 
survival.
  I said earlier during the debate on the rule that I remember the late 
Congressman Henry Hyde being moved literally to tears--I was in the 
room when it happened--when he learned that the Hyde amendment had 
likely saved the lives of more than 1 million babies who today are 
getting on with their lives, going to school, forging a career, perhaps 
serving in this Chamber--at least some of them--or even establishing 
their own families.
  H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively 
ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal 
Government, including ObamaCare, do not subsidize the killing of babies 
except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. 
H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy of allowing tax favored treatment 
for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs, and FSAs. H.R. 3 
also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance 
plans that include abortions, again, except cases of rape, incest, or a 
threat to the life of the mother.
  Madam Speaker, we know that Americans are taking a good, long, hard 
second look at abortion. The polls show it. On taxpayer funding, a 
supermajority--over 60 percent and some polls put it as high as 68 or 
69 percent--do not want their funding being used to pay for abortions.
  Earlier in the debate, some of my colleagues had suggested that this 
is a tax increase; yet the Americans for Tax Reform, who doggedly 
protect the public purse, have said, ``Americans for Tax Reform has no 
problems or issues with H.R. 3. The bill has no net tax change 
whatsoever.''
  H.R. 3 also makes the Hyde-Weldon conscience protection permanent and 
significantly more effective by authorizing the courts to prevent or 
redress actual or threatened violations of conscience. And we know 
without any doubt that there are huge pressures, particularly in some 
States, like California, to coerce healthcare providers and plans and 
insurers and entire health care systems--especially those who are 
faith-based--to change their policy and to permit abortion on demand.
  The need for this protection--Hyde-Weldon--is great. According to 
Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's 
Catholic Health Systems and Hospitals, ``California's Catholic 
hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly 
challenges the concept of conscience-rights protections by attempting 
to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit 
in, or pay for abortion.''
  On three different occasions in the past three years, the California 
Department of Managed Health Care denied health insurance plan 
applications because the plans excluded abortion coverage and demanded 
that all healthcare plans must provide coverage for all basic health 
care services and medically-necessary health services including so-
called ``medically-necessary abortions.'' This is a clear violation of 
the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, but the injured parties lack 
judicial recourse. This legislation would remedy this problem by making 
the policy permanent and providing access to the courts.
  Let me just conclude, Madam Speaker. Someday I truly believe future 
generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, 
and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, 
so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human 
life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and 
the exploitation of their moms. They will note with deep sadness that 
some of our most prominent politicians, while they talked about human 
rights, they never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted 
minority in the world, the child in the womb. Protect innocent life, 
vote for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, on behalf of Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, and me, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 3, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill that restricts the use of 
taxpayer funds for abortion.
  I will continue my statement, but at this time, I would like to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority 
leader of the U.S. House.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. And I would also like to 
congratulate and thank the gentleman from New Jersey, who had just 
spoken, for his leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, above all else, we are a culture that values life. 
Likewise, our efforts as a Nation are dedicated to improving, 
preserving, and celebrating life. That's why it's no surprise that 
polling routinely shows that over 60 percent of Americans oppose 
taxpayer funding for abortion.
  H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, enforces a 
government-wide prohibition on subsidies for abortion and abortion 
coverage. At a time of fiscal crisis, this bill ensures that scarce 
resources are not diverted towards increasing the number of abortions 
in America. This bill also codifies existing conscience protections and

[[Page H3031]]

closes loopholes that offer tax-preferred status to abortion. In short, 
it comports with our values as a people.
  Thomas Jefferson warned that ``to compel a man to subsidize with his 
taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is 
sinful and tyrannical.'' Forcing Americans to subsidize elective 
abortion with their tax dollars falls squarely in this camp.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3 to ensure that 
no taxpayer dollars go toward the funding of abortion.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  We here need to talk straight to the American people. This bill does 
not codify the Hyde amendment. It goes well beyond it. We don't need to 
codify the Hyde amendment. It's the law of the land. The purpose of 
this bill is to go beyond it, and that's what you should acknowledge.

                              {time}  1500

  In doing so, you cross a very, very important line. This bill is 
going nowhere in the Senate. Where it can go is everywhere in 
interfering with a person's access to health care, or with the use of 
their own money for their own purposes as they choose. The logic here, 
if it becomes precedent, could be used, for example, to prevent a 
health policy falling under the Tax Code if the procedure relates to a 
development that occurred because of stem cell research. We should not 
be doing that. It takes away the ability to use an itemized deduction. 
We should not do that.
  Where does this stop? Where does it stop? It crosses a line for the 
first time. It does not codify. It threatens crossing a line we should 
not in terms of the ability of people to provide health care and use 
their own resources.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Simply put, this legislation is about making sure taxpayer funds 
aren't used to fund abortions. In the clearest and most general terms, 
we're codifying the longstanding bipartisan Hyde amendment which 
prevents taxpayer funds from being used for abortion-related costs.
  I want to be clear about what the legislation does and does not do. 
This legislation does not, as critics claim, affect either the ability 
of an individual to pay for an abortion or abortion coverage through 
private funds or the ability of an entity to provide separate abortion 
coverage. It does not apply to abortions in the cases of rape, incest 
or life-threatening physical conditions of the mother. Nor does it 
apply to treatment of injury, infection or other health problems 
resulting from an abortion. And to be crystal clear, this legislation 
does not increase taxes.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to submit a letter from 
Americans for Tax Reform to that effect.


                                     Americans for Tax Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 2011.
     Hon. Pat Tiberi,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Neal,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Tiberi and Ranking Member Neal: On behalf of 
     Americans for Tax Reform, I write today to clarify our 
     position on H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
     Act.'' As you know, the Congressional Budget Office on March 
     15, 2011 declared that H.R. 3 has ``negligible effects on tax 
     revenues.'' In budgetary parlance, that is synonymous with a 
     zero tax score. As a result, ATR has no problems or issues 
     with H.R. 3. The bill has no net tax change whatsoever, and 
     is therefore not legislation at all relating to the Taxpayer 
     Protection Pledge. Attempts to claim otherwise are not based 
     on reality, but on mere political gamesmanship of the lowest 
     order.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you to make 
     certain that all tax legislation is (at worst) tax revenue-
     neutral, as H.R. 3 already is.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Grover Norquist.

  This legislation makes specific and narrow changes to the Tax Code so 
if funds in an FSA or health savings account are used to pay for an 
abortion, those dollars will not receive tax-favored treatment; 
prevents the cost of an abortion from counting towards the deduction 
for unreimbursed medical expense; and clarifies tax subsidies made 
available in the 2010 health law for the purpose of insurance cannot be 
used for policies that cover abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is pro-life, pro-family, and it is pro-
taxpayer. It's a responsible step to ensuring a longstanding precedent 
Republicans and Democrats have supported for decades. And I urge all 
Members to support H.R. 3 so that no taxpayer funds are used for 
abortion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. My friend from Michigan said it right. There are no 
Federal funds for abortion under the terms of the Hyde amendment, 
except in the case of rape and incest.
  What this is about is how families spend their money and small 
business deals with insurance. It's part of a continuing Republican 
assault against people with whom they disagree. It continues the sad 
spectacle of using the Internal Revenue Service--I would say not just 
the use but the abuse of the IRS--to attack people with whom they 
disagree.
  Remember the spectacle of the Ways and Means hearing where they drug 
AARP before them and tried to have an investigation because they 
disagreed with them on health insurance?
  Yes, this would put government between doctors and American families. 
But it's not just about abortion under the Hyde amendment.
  Remember, there are some people who are against the rape and incest 
exemption. There are some people who had a shocking proposal to 
radically change the very definition of rape.
  There is a continuing effort to erode basic fundamental reproductive 
freedom, and this shows a tactic of using the IRS that I think is very 
dangerous. It does, in fact, increase the complexity and raises taxes 
on individuals who may, in fact, need these procedures that may, in 
fact, be lifesaving. The proponents may not agree with what a woman and 
her doctor decide but that should be their decision.
  This raises the specter of using the Tax Code and the Congressional 
investigating power in ways that no one should support.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a nurse and 
a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, today we have heard many 
misrepresentations of the true nature of this bill, and so I want to 
boil it down to the simple facts of what this bill actually does--no 
hyperbole, no scare tactics.
  This bill codifies the Hyde amendment that no taxpayer dollars will 
go to funding abortions. And this is a longstanding policy of the 
Federal Government since 1976.
  We already know how medical expenses of all sorts are treated under 
the Tax Code. Taxpayers who use itemized deductions for medical 
expenses, who have HSAs or FSAs or MSAs, do not, and I want to 
highlight that, do not identify each medical expense on an individual 
tax return. That is not the case today nor will it be the case if this 
bill is signed into law.
  And to be clear, what this bill does not do, a woman would not have 
to list on a tax form that a specific medical expense was for an 
abortion. That's simply not how the process works. It's not how it 
works today nor will it be how it works if this is signed into law.
  So it's important to make clear that no one would ever be audited 
because of an abortion. They would have to already be under an audit 
for some other reason before--and I want to emphasize before--the IRS 
would even consider asking about any medical procedure.
  Many types of medical care are very private. And as a nurse for over 
40 years, I fully understand how personal medical issues can be. And 
taxpayers who don't want to tell the IRS about medical procedures they 
wish to be kept private can do so by not claiming those tax credits for 
such care.
  Now, even if this issue did arise in an audit, other Federal agencies 
that already use taxpayer dollars, such as Medicaid and the Federal 
Employee Health Benefit Program, have had no problem distinguishing 
between abortions following rape and incest and elective abortions, and 
have done so without a reporting requirement. It's already there. They 
generally accept

[[Page H3032]]

the statement of the provider, basically, a doctor's note. And I would 
expect the IRS to do the same in these extremely rare cases.
  Now, that doesn't mean that this is not a very difficult situation 
for that small group of women. And I understand it is incredibly 
difficult, and my heart goes out to them. But if you claim a tax 
benefit for a medical procedure like an abortion and you get audited, 
you can either choose to forego that tax benefit or else prepare to 
substantiate the tax benefit.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to a 
very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley).
  (Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, 
Mrs. Black, when someone comes to the floor and says, I'm going to 
speak now free of hyperbole, well, it will be so high up to your neck 
you don't have to worry about getting it off your shoe because the 
reality is that was all hyperbole.
  If what we were doing here right now was simply codifying existing 
law, there would probably be very little angst on this side of the 
aisle. But that's not what's happening. What this provision does is 
goes so much further. It only speaks to the ideological purge that 
you're on right now.
  Madam Speaker, on the 100th day of Republican rule of the House, I 
stood speechless on this floor at their failed campaign promise to 
focus on job creation and economic growth. It's said, ``Actions speak 
louder than words,'' and that is true.

                              {time}  1510

  For all the Republicans' talk about putting Americans back to work, 
their actions demonstrate this is the least of their priorities. 
Instead, they have cut jobs, they have raised taxes, and reduced 
Americans' access to health care.
  The bill being debated today also has no jobs component whatsoever. 
Not a single job will be created because of this bill today. In fact, 
it will raise taxes and hamper the ability of small businessmen and -
women to hire people.
  In their ideological zeal to restrict a woman's right to choose, the 
Republicans have prioritized a measure that the South Carolina Small 
Business Chamber of Commerce calls, and I quote, ``a slap in the face 
to small business owners.''
  We just a few weeks ago removed the 1099 onerous provisions, and now 
we are going to further burden small businessmen and -women with this 
provision. It will burden them. It will not create a single job. It 
will only further burden the ability of small businessmen and -women to 
create jobs in America.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today should be a no-brainer. 
Americans overwhelmingly reject the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. 
In several polls over the last few years, anywhere from 60 percent to 
70 percent of the public oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion. H.R. 
3 puts into statute the will of the American people.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been included in appropriations 
bills to ensure that Federal funds are not used to provide abortions. 
This policy provision has passed year in and year out with bipartisan 
support. H.R. 3 would just take that provision and put it into law. 
This may make sense to most Americans, but for some reason this idea 
receives great pushback in Washington.
  Health care reform also placed abortion funding at the center of its 
debate. In their haste to pass ObamaCare last Congress, the Democrat 
leadership in Washington neglected to include any adequate prohibition 
on abortion funding. The President did issue an executive order to 
support the intentions of Hyde. Unfortunately, the order merely 
reiterated the accounting gimmick in the health care bill.
  The President's own chief of staff at that time would later comment 
on how he thought up the idea for this executive order so that they 
could ``allow the Stupak amendment not to exist by law but by executive 
order.''
  When the President signed that bill into law, he allowed a massive 
expansion in Federal funding for abortion. In a time of great Federal 
debt, the last thing the American people want is to have their taxpayer 
dollars used on the morally objectionable practice of abortion.
  According to a 2007 Guttmacher Institute report, if the Hyde 
amendment were removed from law, the number of abortions would likely 
increase by 25 percent. The study reveals what is common sense: an 
increase in funding for abortions will directly lead to an increase in 
the number of abortions.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed 
their desire to reduce abortions. If that is truly their desire and not 
just a talking point, then they should have no problem at all voting in 
favor of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
extreme legislation, and I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the 
so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. But don't be confused. 
H.R. 3 goes far beyond current law which is already highly restrictive 
and, frankly, which I oppose.
  The Hyde amendment already prohibits women enrolled in Medicaid and 
Medicare, Federal employees, women serving in the military, women in 
Federal prisons, Peace Corps volunteers, and women seeking care under 
the Indian Health Services Act from getting the care they need. In 
other words, there is no Federal funding for abortion. But actually 
what it does do, among other things, is attack small businesses.
  Let's hear the words of Frank Knapp, Jr., president and CEO of the 
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce with 5,000 members. 
Here is what he says:
  H.R. 3 is an attempt to roll back the historic small business health 
insurance tax credit created by the Affordable Care Act. When the House 
voted to eliminate and defeat the entire Affordable Care Act, we--he 
means small businesses--could rationalize that this great benefit for 
small businesses was just collateral damage. My own Congressman told me 
he would support the small business health insurance tax credits in the 
Affordable Care Act replacement legislation. But small businesses can 
no longer think of themselves as collateral damage.
  Mr. Knapp says: Let me make this very clear. A vote for H.R. 3 is a 
direct attack on small business. Every Representative who loudly 
proclaims their love for small businesses because they are the backbone 
of the economy now can put their vote where their mouth is. Their true 
support for small business will be judged by their ``no'' vote on H.R. 
3.
  I urge all my colleagues not to let this phony use of the Tax Code to 
take away the rights of small businesses that get tax credits or 
individuals to pay for abortions with their own money.
  Mr. PITTS. For the information of the Members, the Hyde amendment 
only applies to the Labor-H bill. It is offered every year as a rider. 
Similar language is offered to Indian Health, Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Act. We have done these amendments, or riders, to these bills 
every year for years. So when you speak about the Hyde amendment, we 
should speak about it accurately.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
  This is not a controversial bill. This is a commonsense bill to rein 
in our runaway government spending and to quit spending money on things 
that the American citizens don't want. Certainly we should not be 
spending our hard-earned tax dollars on abortion.
  People work hard all year to send in their taxes on April 15, and 
they shouldn't have their money going to something that is morally 
objectionable to them that takes away human life.
  There are many, many areas of this budget that we need to rein in, 
but this is noncontroversial. This is something that over 60 percent of 
the American people say, I don't want my tax dollars

[[Page H3033]]

going to pay for abortions, the taking of a human innocent life.
  So it is time to make this permanent so that we don't have to, as a 
Congress, come in every year and discuss these issues on all the 
different legislation that is out there. Now is the time to make this 
permanent. Get it off the table so we can get on to other areas of 
reining in the runaway spending, making government more efficient and 
more effective, using our tax dollars more wisely.
  And certainly it is not an affront to women's health. Women have the 
opportunity to get the health care that they need now, but we don't 
need to be using it to take innocent human life.
  I certainly applaud this bill, which has so many cosponsors. We need 
to make sure that our tax dollars are not used for abortion.

                              {time}  1520

  Ms. DeGETTE. I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a senior member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle think that, if 
they repeat something again and again, people will begin to believe it. 
The fact of the matter is the Hyde Amendment already prohibits Federal 
funds from being used for abortions. This is not about Federal funds.
  The other thing I don't understand is my Republican friends always 
claim that they want smaller government, that they don't want the 
government to intrude on people's lives. So here we are, about to pass 
a measure that expands government, that intrudes on people's lives, 
that penalizes small businesses, and impedes them from creating jobs.
  I don't believe the government should be in the business of 
preventing people from accessing legal medical treatment. It surprises 
me and worries me that this Congress keeps proposing legislation that 
diminishes the right to access health care. Abortion is legal in this 
country. I understand how people feel on both sides of the aisle. It's 
a very personal decision. Yet Republicans seem intent on interfering 
with a woman's right to make her own decisions with her family and 
physicians, using her private money.
  Abortion is a difficult choice, to be sure, and this extreme 
legislation makes the decision even harder. We need to provide women 
and their families with the support they need to make health decisions, 
not criminalize them. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his leadership 
on this issue and for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, not using the hard-earned money of taxpayers to 
destroy innocent unborn children is not extreme, and it is not radical. 
It is the right thing to do. The majority of Americans agrees with us 
that it is the wrong thing to use their money for this issue.
  I want to support my colleague in this legislation in saying we need 
to pass this bill, and we need to send a message to the American people 
that we are wise stewards of their money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in sitting and listening to this debate, it would be 
extremely easy to become completely confused. The proponents of this 
bill keep repeating the same mantra. They want to stop the Federal 
funding of abortion. They forget to mention that there is no Federal 
funding of abortion.
  What they want to do for the first time is to expand restrictions on 
funding into tax policy. Right now, under current law, we have the Hyde 
Amendment, which every year prevents Federal funds from being used for 
abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or in saving the life of 
the mother. I don't like the Hyde Amendment. Lots of people don't like 
the Hyde Amendment, but it's the law. This bill, however, goes far 
beyond current law. Now my colleagues across the aisle want to expand 
these restrictions and make sure that individuals and businesses can't 
get complete women's health care in their health insurance, with their 
own money, without paying for a tax increase. Businesses, which right 
now get tax relief for having full health insurance, would not be able 
to get it.
  Let me say this again: At a time when everybody in this House and 
certainly when everybody on the other side of the aisle is saying we 
can't raise taxes, the leadership of this House is supporting raising 
taxes to advance a social policy.
  I don't think, Madam Speaker, that this was in the Republican Pledge 
to America. I don't know how many times the Republican leadership is 
going to make this Congress vote to strip American women of their 
access to health care with their own money. I, for one, would like to 
encourage them to spend their time getting our country back to work 
rather than on an extreme agenda that the American people didn't ask 
for, didn't want, and that is going nowhere in the U.S. Senate but, if 
it did, would be vetoed by the President of the United States.
  I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of 
legislation.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R 3, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Congressman Christopher 
H. Smith. This bill, supported by the United Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, would reinforce the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of 
federal funds to cover abortion services; the bill would also prohibit 
federal funding for health insurance that includes abortion coverage.
  H.R. 3 would prevent public funds from being used to pay for, or 
subsidize, abortions, either through the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act or health care affordability tax credits. The bill 
includes a provision to provide for exceptions in the case of rape, 
incest, physical injury or physical illness to the women. The Hyde 
Amendment is already in place in current federal health programs like 
Medicaid and Medicare, and this bill would ensure it is governed in a 
consistent manner.
  I have received numerous letters from my constituents whom have 
expressed serious concerns that federal funds would be used to pay for 
elective abortion procedures. I am very supportive of the overall goals 
of H.R. 3, which would effectively codify the Hyde-Weldon clause to 
support existing federal conscience protections for health care 
providers.
  I commend Congressman Smith for his leadership on this important 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MARINO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I believe 
strongly that every human life should be protected, whether born or yet 
to be born. As the father of two adopted children this issue is very 
personal to me; every day that I spend with my children reminds me that 
all lives are precious. Protecting the lives of innocent children 
should be the responsibility of Congress and this legislation 
represents an important step in the right direction.
  Currently, we rely on a patchwork of ``riders'' to appropriations 
legislation or Executive orders to protect American taxpayers from 
funding abortions. As the debate on the health care legislation 
transpired during the last Congress, we saw first-hand the problem with 
continuing to rely on this draconian process. Instead of relying on the 
whims of the annual appropriations process or any easily revocable 
order by the President, it is time to put into law the prohibition 
against using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. The Federal 
government should not, directly or indirectly, provide any funding for 
abortion services and this legislation is critical to ensuring these 
prohibitions exist.
  As you can see, I believe one of the largest responsibilities of 
Congress is to provide the utmost protection for our nation's 
children--including the lives of the unborn. It is time that we enact 
one, consistent policy to eliminate any problems or confusion about 
abortion funding in future legislation.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is an extremely misleading piece of 
legislation. Supporters of the bill argue that it will simply codify 
the Hyde amendment and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of 
abortion. However, we all know that is false. H.R. 3 is actually much 
more nefarious than that. It seeks to restrict women's reproductive 
rights and access to health care; increase healthcare premiums for many 
Americans and small businesses; and, limit the private insurance 
choices of consumers. It will almost certainly guarantee that insurance 
companies will no longer offer abortion coverage to consumers.
  The Republicans in the House have been on a mission, ever since they 
took over the Majority, to completely eliminate women's reproductive 
rights and their access to healthcare.

[[Page H3034]]

  I recently received a letter from a male constituent who is 68 years 
young; someone we can all agree is definitely not in need of 
reproductive health care. This man is a recipient of Medicare and 
receives his primary care at the Santa Cruz chapter of Planned 
Parenthood. His doctor is the one of the few doctors in Santa Cruz 
County who currently accepts Medicare patients.
  If the Republicans get their way and federal funding is denied to 
Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide primary 
healthcare for low income patients simply because they also provide 
reproductive healthcare, then this man, along with millions of other 
low income Americans, will be denied their only access to primary 
healthcare in their communities. Hospital emergency rooms will become 
the health care provider of first resort. Hospitals that are currently 
overwhelmed would be further inundated, thereby driving up healthcare 
costs even higher and costing the federal government even more taxpayer 
dollars.
  If saving taxpayer dollars is truly the goal, then the Majority 
should be supporting family planning and reproductive healthcare 
services, not attacking them. We all know that for every $1 spent on 
family planning, $4 of taxpayer money is saved.
  This bill is radical and extreme. It is a far cry from any kind of 
middle ground or compromise on abortion policy. It will make abortion 
as difficult to obtain as possible without actually criminalizing the 
procedure. H.R. 3 overreaches in every possible way. More importantly, 
it would penalize rather than help taxpayers, impede basic government 
functions, and discriminate against women who are struggling to do 
their best in a difficult situation.
  Madam Speaker, the American people want both parties to work 
together. H.R. 3 only inflames an already intense and intractable 
debate and further polarizes this House. I urge my colleagues to object 
to H.R. 3.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3, an unnecessary and intrusive bill that represents a short-sighted 
attack on the rights of women and families, and distracts us from the 
work that Americans sent us here to do.
  H.R. 3 would diminish meaningful access to healthcare for millions of 
lower and middle income families by denying them tax credits if the 
insurance plan they choose includes coverage for abortion services. 
This means that under this bill, for the first time ever, our country 
would equate health expenses that are the subject of preferential tax 
treatment as the same as federal spending. The costs of health services 
remain the same, whether the coverage for abortions is provided in a 
plan or not. Removing these tax breaks for the most vulnerable members 
of our society is not only dangerous, it is heartless, and it will 
return a constitutionally-protected medical procedure to its dark back-
alley days. Rather than offering real solutions to the problems our 
nation faces, the other side of the aisle only offers a return to the 
fights over social issues of the past.
  Republicans claim that H.R. 3 merely codifies the Hyde Amendment, a 
provision prohibiting the use of federal funds for most abortion 
services, but it goes much farther than that--it tries to end private 
insurance coverage of abortion care. Besides, the Hyde Amendment has 
been passed every single year for nearly forty years--we already have a 
law prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, we don't 
need another one.
   H.R. 3 is an unnecessary distraction from the real issues that we 
were sent here to address. While some of us take our duties seriously, 
the GOP is busy creating diversions to avoid doing real work. Rather 
than focus on job creation, as the American public has said it wants us 
to do, the Republican majority would limit women's healthcare options 
and increase healthcare costs for lower- and middle-income women and 
families. This kind of diversion has no place in this Congress. The GOP 
has been in the majority for four months, yet they have failed to 
introduce even one piece of legislation that addresses jobs. They do, 
however, have the time to play political games with the health care of 
poor Americans and to attack the rights of every woman in this country 
to choice--a personal decision that is and should remain between a 
women and her physician.
   The proponents of this legislation aren't interested in addressing 
real problems, Madam Speaker. They're only interested in creating more 
of them. That is why I oppose H.R. 3.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This deceptively 
titled legislation is nothing more than another Republican assault on 
women's access to reproductive health care.
  At a time when Congress needs to be focused on creating jobs and 
protecting the middle class, the Republican majority has decided to 
make this anti-choice bill a priority. If enacted, this legislation 
will severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care by:
  1. Banning the coverage of abortion services in the new health care 
law;
  2. Imposing tax penalties on women and small businesses with health 
insurance plans that cover abortion;
  3. Narrowing the already restrictive rape and incest exceptions in 
the Hyde Amendment; and
  4. Continuing to limit access to reproductive health care for low 
income women, and ban coverage for federal employees and women in the 
military.
  If this bill were enacted, millions of families and small businesses 
with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would 
be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance 
even more expensive.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion 
coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees 
pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, 
H.R. 3 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health 
insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is 
paid for from private funds.
  This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies 
dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to 
affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private 
insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. 
If H.R. 3 is made into law, consumer options for private health 
insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on 
these policy holders would increase significantly.
  H.R. 3 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer 
their employees insurance plans that cover abortion. This would have a 
significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would 
no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and 
deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small 
businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer 
be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 
35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--threatening 4 million small 
businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of 
their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will 
also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.
  A November 2010 Hart Research poll found that a significant majority 
(74%) of the American population opposes the key provision of this 
bill, which would increase the tax burden on those who purchase 
comprehensive health insurance plans.
  Current law requires state Medicaid programs to cover abortion care 
in limited circumstances, including in cases of rape, incest, or when 
the pregnancy jeopardizes the woman's life. H.R. 3 would allow states 
to refuse abortion coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries in all of these 
cases, even when their life is in danger.
  Women who would need to terminate a pregnancy as a result of medical 
complications would be forced to pay up to $10,000 or more for abortion 
services. For many women, being forced to pay the full cost of an 
abortion is not economically feasible and would lead many families into 
bankruptcy or force pregnant women with medical complications to take 
on major risks to carry the child to term. H.R. 3 would also undermine 
the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds 
for abortion care to low-income women.
  The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used 
for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and 
health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's 
life in danger. H.R. 3 would restrict women's access to reproductive 
health care even further by narrowing the already stringent 
requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.
  When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President 
issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used 
for abortion services.'' This bill goes far beyond the safeguards 
established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous 
precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this 
country.
  At a time when the American people want Congress to focus on creating 
jobs and stabilizing the economy, the Republicans wish to focus on this 
divisive piece of legislation that does nothing to move our country 
forward.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.R. 3, a bill that 
represents an unprecedented step backward in women's reproductive 
freedom.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my deep 
opposition to H.R. 3. Rather than focus on legislation that will help 
the millions of Americans struggling to recover from a national 
recession, the majority in this chamber have instead decided to take up 
an unreasonable piece of legislation that essentially declares war on 
women's access to healthcare.

[[Page H3035]]

  H.R. 3 is being called the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' 
In fact, the healthcare legislation that President Obama signed into 
law last year already states that no federal taxpayer dollars may be 
use to fund abortion services. Additionally, the law requires that 
plans receiving federal funds must keep taxpayer dollars separate from 
funds for abortion services.
  Women in the United States simply do not get public funds for 
abortion services. However, under the guise of eliminating abortion 
funding, what this bill really does is limit access to reproductive 
healthcare for the millions of women who pay for insurance and medical 
expenses through their own private insurance plans.
  Finally, it is my firm belief that it is not the place of Congress to 
impede on women's reproductive freedom rights, which is exactly what 
this bill does.
  Instead of debating divisive partisan issues, we should be working to 
get the nation back on track. The Republican leadership has controlled 
the agenda in the House of Representatives for the last 18 weeks and 
has still not brought forth legislation that would help stimulate the 
economy and spur economic growth.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Throughout my years in 
Congress, I have always supported the Hyde amendment and have been 
against any government funding of abortion. Moreover, I have voted with 
the conviction that we, as Members of Congress, should not reach into 
the private lives of our constituents on issues as personal as this.
  There is a very thin line here and this bill goes beyond it. As we 
all know, good policy is about striking a good balance. During health 
care reform, we reached a delicate compromise yet this bill would 
unravel that compromise to use the tax code in an unprecedented manner. 
As a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, I am acutely aware of how 
we use the tax code and disagree with the majority's choice to set this 
precedent.
  At the end of the day, my constituents know my position on this 
issue. I believe women should be able to make their personal decisions 
in consultation with their families, their faith, and with their health 
professionals. That is how it should be. However, should this bill 
become law, not only would the IRS be involved asking women about a 
very personal decision, but the middle class would face increased 
taxes. I am not comfortable with these consequences and with the 
unbalanced approach of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
H.R. 3.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am wholly opposed to this legislation, 
and urge its defeat.
  We have a lot of challenges in this country: high gasoline prices, 
high unemployment, an economy that is not growing strongly enough, 
crumbling infrastructure, a growing threat from carbon pollution and 
climate change, and two ongoing wars in the Middle East, among many 
others.
  But rather than focus on issues that are front and center in the 
lives of Americans from all walks of life, what legislation does the 
Republican leadership choose to bring to the floor today? Not a bill 
for jobs. Not a bill for growth. Not a bill that will promote clean 
energy. Not a bill for education. Not a bill for infrastructure 
investment. Not even a bill that addresses the deficit.
  Instead, the Republican leadership presents a bill whose relentless 
focus is to extinguish a woman's right of choice with respect to 
pregnancy.
  We have already resolved this issue. Last year, we did so in the 
Affordable Care Act. That law clearly and unequivocally prohibits the 
use of federal funds for abortion; keeps state and federal abortion-
related law in place; and ensures that those whose conscience dictates 
against abortion are protected, and not discriminated against.
  But this is not enough for some. H.R. 3 will result in a virtual 
shut-down of abortion services in the United States.
  In addition to making permanent the prohibition in existing law on 
any federal funding for abortion, H.R. 3 prohibits any federal funds 
from being expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage 
of abortion. It establishes tax penalties for private expenditures on 
abortion. It provides a limitation on federal facilities and employees 
with respect to abortion. It again singles out the District of Columbia 
to prevent the citizens of that city from determining whether the local 
government can fund abortion services with its own revenue.
  H.R. 3 is extreme, it is cruel, it is offensive, and it is wrong.
  As I have stated in opposing other restrictive legislation on 
reproductive rights this year, this legislation will not become law. It 
is not what the American people are asking us to do. November's 
election was focused on jobs and economic growth. Its outcome was not a 
mandate to erode the rights of choice that are protected by the 
Constitution.
  H.R. 3 turns the clock back to over 50 years ago. It should never 
have been brought to the floor and it should never be given the force 
of law. Not in the United States of America. Not in the 21st century. I 
urge its defeat.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to state my strong 
opposition to H.R. 3. This bill--ostensibly the Republican leadership's 
third-highest priority--is a reprehensible piece of legislation that 
will do nothing but put the lives of American women at risk.
  It also tells us what the Republican leadership thinks of American 
women. When this bill was first introduced, I was outraged and 
horrified that the bill narrowed the long-standing exemption for rape 
to only ``forcible rape.'' I called this out for what it is--a violent 
act against women.
  When this bill was marked up in the House Judiciary committee, 
``forcible'' had been removed, therefore leaving the language as it has 
stood for decades. Without the word ``forcible,'' this exemption 
includes a wealth of horrifying circumstances, such as date rape, 
statutory rape, and rape where the woman is unconscious or mentally 
unable to consent.
  To say that these instances are not really rape is a violent affront 
against women and the gravest insult to ALL victims of sexual assault.
  Madam Speaker, I was absolutely incensed when I learned that although 
``forcible'' does not appear in the bill language, its sponsors ensured 
that the report language clearly noted that the bill intends to apply 
to only ``forcible'' instances of rape.
  So not only do the bill's sponsors not have a problem with 
endangering the lives of American women--but they're perfectly fine 
with not telling them the truth, too.
  Let me be clear--no amendment, no word change could make this bill 
even close to acceptable. It is an insult to American women who require 
life-saving abortion care for health purposes, and a slap in the face 
to all American women who until now may have thought that their 
constitutional right to make their own private medical decisions about 
their body was safe.
  Now we know that it's not-- and the anti-choice community will stop 
at nothing to ensure that they chip away at Roe v. Wade until it is 
gone forever.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this atrocious 
bill. A vote against H.R. 3 is a vote for the health of American women 
and the sanctity of constitutional rights for us all.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to the ``No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
  Of the many problems with this legislation, it ignores the fact that 
the Affordable Care Act already bans federal funding for abortion 
except in rare cases. Instead of being content with these firm 
restrictions, the authors of this bill have paved a new way for the 
most perilous anti-choice policy: their legislation would actually deny 
a woman an abortion when carrying out her pregnancy would endanger her 
life. The more subtle details of the bill are almost as onerous.
  Republicans want IRS agents to double as ``abortion detectives'' who 
decide whether tax benefits have been improperly claimed with regard to 
abortion service expenses. Their legislation prevents low-income women 
and families from using premium tax credits if their coverage includes 
abortion services. It increases families' taxes when they use funds 
from their health savings or flexible-spending accounts for abortion 
related expenses. It denies employers the right to use ACA tax credits 
to provide their employees with comprehensive health coverage.
  If this bill becomes law, our constituents will be paying far more 
than just higher taxes: they will be paying with their privacy, their 
dignity, and their right to determine the course of their own lives.
  This bill does everything short of having anti-choice politicians 
physically present in our doctor's rooms, in our hospitals and looking 
over our shoulders when we fill out our tax forms. I urge my colleagues 
to show their respect for our constituents by opposing this thoughtless 
and harmful bill.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strongest opposition to 
H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Not only is this 
bill taking up valuable floor time, but it is redundant and goes beyond 
a woman's right to control her body by tinkering with the tax code and 
private health insurance plans.
  It is a mystery to me why we keep wasting time on legislation that 
addresses abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, and 
there are established policies that prohibit the use of federal funds 
for abortion services except in very narrow circumstances. The 
President has announced he will veto this bill should it actually reach 
his desk.
  Almost 9 percent of Americans are out of work, yet the House of 
Representatives has not taken one step to address this pressing 
national concern.
  My Republican colleagues--who are strong advocates for less 
government--consistently

[[Page H3036]]

want the federal government to oversee a woman's reproductive rights. 
This legislation jeopardizes the health of pregnant women who may be 
suffering from cancer or another devastating disease, by limiting their 
ability to obtain adequate insurance in the private market.
  House Republicans are manipulating the tax code to make sure 
abortions are out of reach for low income and in some cases, even 
middle class women. This legislation would also take away benefits that 
women insured in the private market currently have by imposing tax 
penalties on individuals and small businesses whose insurance plans 
include any kind of abortion services.
  And if all this weren't enough, H.R. 3 would once again tell the 
District of Columbia how to spend its own money. It would codify policy 
included in the CR usurping the city council's authority to use locally 
raised revenue to provide abortion care for its low-income residents, 
an unfair restriction which Congress lifted in 2009 and reimposed this 
year.
  Why should the District of Columbia be constantly used as a Petri 
dish for Republican policy experiments. It just isn't right.
  Abortion is a hard choice for any woman. It is a decision that should 
be made by her, her family and her physician--without the federal 
government restricting access to services.
  Let's move on to legislation that will help grow our economy and get 
people back to work.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity 
to examine H.R. 3, ``the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' a bill 
which is claimed to simply codify what is already law. However, H.R. 3 
is by far more restrictive than any current law, or interpretation 
thereof.
  My colleagues across the aisle claim that this bill is simply about 
limiting federal funding for abortions. If that were truly the case, 
then there would be no purpose for H.R. 3, because Federal funding has 
not been available for abortions since passage of the Hyde amendment in 
1977.
  The effect of H.R. 3 is, in fact, to so drastically limit access to 
abortions that they will essentially become unavailable, even when paid 
for with an individual's own funds. In its attempt to make abortions 
unavailable, H.R. 3 will have a detrimental impact on women's health, 
and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected right to 
choose.
  Twice, first in the Judiciary Committee Markup and secondly when H.R. 
3 was being considered in the Rules Committee, I have attempted to 
offer to amendments to this bill that help to protect both the 
constitutionally protected rights of women, and their health. In both 
instances, my amendments were not accepted by the Republican majority 
on the Rules Committee.
  My first amendment would have required the Attorney General to 
certify to Congress that H.R. 3 does not violate any constitutionally 
protected right before allowing this bill to take effect. The sponsor's 
of this bill have been perfectly clear that their goal with H.R. 3 is 
to create so many barriers and obstacles to abortion that it 
essentially becomes unavailable. The law is clear that while the 
government may regulate, it cannot impose an undue burden on a 
constitutionally protected right. The effect of H.R. 3 would be to 
impose such an insurmountable burden on a woman's fundamental right to 
make decisions about pregnancy that it could very likely be considered 
unconstitutional.
  The second amendment I attempted to offer would have created an 
exception to protect women from severe long lasting health damage. This 
amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists. Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long-
lasting damage to their health during pregnancy, including but not 
limited to lung disease, heart disease diabetes, and loss of 
reproductive ability. H.R. 3 only considered a woman's health when she 
is faced with death, but provides no protection for women who face 
serious health consequences from continuing a pregnancy. Congress 
should not be in the business of interfering with a woman's health, nor 
should we ever single out women who choose not to endure long-lasting 
health defects or diseases due to a pregnancy.

  H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on a women like Tamara, a mother 
of 3 who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and found out she was 
pregnant. She was faced with the difficult choice of carrying the 
pregnancy to term and risking her own health or terminating the 
pregnancy to receive treatment for her cancer.
  H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on women like Holly from my state 
of Texas, a mother of two who suffered from a serious illness affecting 
her liver. Treatment for her liver would pose a threat to her 
pregnancy.
  H.R. 3 goes to new lengths by effectively using the tax code to 
impede upon a woman's right to choose and essentially penalize 
individuals for even carrying health insurance that covers abortions.
  It imposes an unprecedented penalty on anyone who spends their own 
money to pay for abortion, or in many cases, those who use their own 
money for insurance that will cover abortion if needed.
  H.R. 3 will actually impose a tax increase on many Americans--across 
all races, all classes, and all socioeconomic levels. It increases 
taxes on women, families, and businesses by denying them the normal tax 
exemptions and credits for health insurance if they choose a policy 
that provides abortion coverage. This unprecedented penalty is a 
radical restriction on a lawful and constitutionally protected medical 
procedure. It will result in a tax increase on anyone who uses their 
own money to pay for abortion or, in many cases, insurance that would 
cover abortion.
  Furthermore, the Bill puts the IRS into the middle of private and 
personal decisions by families. The result of this bill would also be 
that the IRS would be required to use the tools currently available as 
part of its tax enforcement duties, including the IRS's ability to 
audit taxpayers, to determine whether tax benefits had properly or 
improperly been claimed with respect to expenses related to abortion 
services. Family planning decisions, which are amongst the most 
personal and private decisions many people face, are subject to 
scrutiny by the IRS for tax purposes.
  H.R. 3 does not merely codify existing protections for so-called 
rights of conscience. H.R. 3 rejects the even-handed approach taken 
since 1973 in the Church Amendment, which protects the religious or 
moral beliefs of those who provide, or refuse to provide, abortion 
services.
  Furthermore, it takes the more-recent Weldon Amendment approach, 
which allows a large universe of entities to refuse abortion services 
for any--or no reason whatsoever. Unlike the Church Amendment approach, 
H.R. 3 protects only those who refuse to provide abortion services, and 
makes that one-sided protection permanent for all laws by providing a 
completely new private cause of action. It does nothing to protect 
those entities that do offer abortions.
  The conscience rights of those who provide services, and not just 
those who refuse, deserve equal respect and recognition. Americans 
rights of conscience should not be protected only if they accord with 
the views of the Members of Congress; they should be protected 
regardless of what lawmakers' personal beliefs are.
  Instead of Bringing Up Bills to Create Jobs, Republicans Are Pursuing 
An Extreme and Divisive Agenda. Today, the House will consider H.R. 3, 
Restricting Women's Access to Full Range of Health Care Services. 
Americans want us to work together to create jobs and move the country 
forward. This bill would do exactly the opposite--move our country 
backwards in an attempt to re-litigate a divisive issue.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called and sorely mislabeled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
  This bill is a hoax as Federal law currently prohibits the use of 
taxpayer money on abortion services. The legislation would effectively 
prevent millions of American women from using their own private money 
to purchase an insurance plan that includes coverage of abortions--
whether it is private insurance or an insurance plan in the Health 
Insurance Exchanges. In addition, small businesses would not be allowed 
to take advantage of tax credits if it provided comprehensive health 
care coverage to its employees. This is a dramatic break with the 
current practice where most insurance plans provide for such coverage 
for individuals who choose such plans.
  A woman's right to choose her own health care is a fundamental one, 
and the Congress should not tell women how to manage their health or 
reproductive care. Sadly, the legislation we're considering today will 
do just that and severely jeopardize women's access to health care.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided bill 
because it would effectively prohibit individuals from using their own 
money to purchase insurance plans offering comprehensive health care 
coverage. Instead, I urge the Republican majority to focus on an agenda 
that will create jobs, help America's middle class families, and move 
our country forward.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation 
and to focus on the importance of the health of the many women in my 
district and across our nation.
  I stand against H.R. 3, because I believe that a woman deserves the 
same respect as a man. She deserves this respect as an employee, a 
wife, a mother, a sister, simply just for her humanity. And that 
respect must be real and must include important matters like access to 
health care.
  During the 111th Congress, we made it illegal for insurance companies 
to charge a woman a higher premium just because she is

[[Page H3037]]

female. We did this because to do anything else is blatant 
discrimination.
  Yet here we are today, with a bill that would circumvent the very 
discrimination we stopped and would direct the Internal Revenue Service 
to tax a woman based on her health needs, just because her needs are 
different from that of a man.
  Even worse, at this critical time in our economy, we are now going to 
tax any business that provides comprehensive health care to a woman.
  So, instead of fighting for the most critical need of our nation 
right now, job creation, H.R. 3 picks a fight with a woman and her 
employer.
  Why do any one of us seek to have health insurance? We choose to have 
health insurance in order to plan for the unforeseeable, the unknown, 
those emergencies that arise and for which no one can plan. No one 
plans to have cancer, but many Americans do. Health insurance is how 
each of us protects ourselves against the unknown.
  This legislation says that a woman--with her own money--cannot have 
comprehensive health insurance without a penalty. It creates a new 
barrier to access to care, and puts in place a system of 
discrimination, backed by statute in the United States Tax Code.
  For my colleagues who argue that this is to reduce the rate of 
abortion services, it will not. The facts show otherwise.
  Access to family planning services is what reduces the need for 
abortion services. It is family planning services that have proven to 
cut the rate of abortion by more than 200,000 per year and reduce 
unintended pregnancies by more than 600,000 per year.
  This bill was titled the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' 
but it reads more like a ``Tax our Daughters Act.''
  Stop this boldfaced attack on American women. Let us instead provide 
them with jobs and a fair paycheck.
  Vote against H.R. 3. Show the women of your district, and your 
family, that you respect them.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lummis). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 237, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 3 
is postponed.

                          ____________________