[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 60 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E819-E820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 4, 2011

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress in 2001, I have 
strongly supported the longstanding policy that prohibits federal 
funding of abortion. However, I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 
3, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, which goes far beyond 
current policy by using the tax code to punish families and small 
businesses for the private insurance that they already have.
  The thirty-year precedent to restrict the federal funding of 
abortion, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment, has rightfully served 
as a guarantee to citizens that the federal government shall not use 
taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions beyond the unique exceptions of 
rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother. The Hyde Amendment is 
a common sense measure to prevent the federal funding of something that 
many oppose on moral or religious grounds. I am certainly one of those 
people. However, this bill does much more than make this policy 
permanent federal law.

[[Page E820]]

  For the first time ever, H.R. 3 would expand the definition of 
federal funding to include tax deductions and credits of private income 
or expenses. In other words, current restrictions on government 
spending would also be applied to the private dollars families and 
small businesses decide to spend on health coverage. This is an 
unparalleled reinterpretation of federal funding that could have far-
reaching consequences for families, businesses, and even religious 
institutions.
  This bill explicitly prohibits individuals and small businesses that 
elect a private insurance plan with abortion coverage from claiming 
certain tax deductions, credits and exclusions for health care 
expenses, even if that abortion coverage is never used but happens to 
be part of a plan that otherwise works best for a particular family. 
Such a substantial change in federal policy would raise taxes on 
families and small businesses for private coverage that they are 
already struggling to afford.
  This prohibition is also not equally applied to large employers, who 
can continue offering abortion coverage, creating an uneven and unjust 
application of abortion policy within the tax code. Further, since the 
IRS is charged with enforcing taxpayer compliance, this bill raises 
serious concerns over how the government might audit ``questionable'' 
benefit claims by women who receive an abortion as a result of sexual 
assault or legitimate life-threatening medical conditions.
  It is also important to note that taking the unprecedented step of 
redefining ``federal funding'' to include the benefit of a tax 
exemption could raise political and legal questions for churches and 
other religious organizations which operate under similar restrictions 
as current law. Many religious institutions either receive segregated 
federal funds or tax exemptions to run activities such as adoption 
services, homeless shelters and food banks. This precedent challenges 
the very pro-life activities that these churches promote.
  Although this bill contains many provisions that I do support, it 
simply goes too far by redefining the very meaning of federal funding.
  Finally, we must not lose focus on the truly urgent priorities of 
Americans right now, namely economic security and deficit reduction. We 
are five months into this session and Republicans have yet to offer a 
single bill to help create jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
current version of this bill, stop allowing divisive social issues to 
dominate our time, and turn our attention to the true economic and 
fiscal challenges in front of us.

                          ____________________