[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1443-H1458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION 
 AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2014, AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2642, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE 
                 REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 465

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to 
     prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-33 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, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of 
     agricultural and other programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House 
Resolution 465 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. The resolution--in waiving all points of 
order against consideration of both H.R. 7, the antiabortion bill, and 
the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill--waives section 425 
of the Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. BLACK). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts makes a point of order that the resolution violates 
section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say that it is 
outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the Republican leadership has 
combined a major piece of antiabortion legislation with the farm bill 
conference report into one single rule, restricting our ability to 
debate both of these important issues.
  There is an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP in this conference report, a cut 
that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the 
disabled. Besides being cruel and heartless, this cut is also an 
unfunded mandate. If States, cities, or towns want to prevent hunger 
from getting worse, they will have to spend more money out of their own 
budgets.
  Now, I know my Republican friends are in a big hurry to go off to 
their issues retreat at some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have 
found another hour somewhere.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I 
was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. I 
want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking

[[Page H1444]]

Member Peterson and all of my colleagues for their hard work.
  I want a farm bill. I want to support the farm bill conference. But 
from the beginning of this process, I made my position very clear that 
I will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in America. And 
this farm bill fails that basic test. If this bill passes, hundreds of 
thousands of vulnerable Americans will have less to eat, period.
  Now, some people will say, well, an $8 billion cut in SNAP is better 
than what the House Republicans wanted to do. That is a strange 
argument, Madam Speaker. It is like saying thank goodness the burglar 
only took the silver, because he could have taken the jewelry, too.
  The fact of the matter is that any cut to SNAP will be piled on top 
of the cut that already went into effect last fall. And any cut to SNAP 
will result in more Americans going hungry. And any cut in SNAP will 
increase the financial burdens on State and local governments.
  There are those, Madam Speaker, who claim that the Heat and Eat 
program is some sort of a loophole. It isn't. It is a policy decision. 
It is a way for States to help some of our neighbors who are struggling 
through very difficult times. But even if this is a loophole, I ask my 
friends, of all the loopholes in Federal law, of all of the special 
interest giveaways, this is the one you are going to target? This is 
the one that is in your crosshairs, a program that helps poor people 
get enough food to eat? My goodness.
  There are those who say that States and local governments or food 
banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. Have any of those 
people actually ever been to a food bank? Have they ever talked to a 
director of a food pantry? Because they are already at capacity, Madam 
Speaker. They can't meet the needs of the clients that they already 
have.
  My Republican friends have made their priorities very clear. They 
want to dismantle the social safety net. They want to get the Federal 
Government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat.
  But I also want to say that I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, in the 
people in my own party, here in the Congress and in the White House, 
who are going along with this.
  Tonight, the President of the United States will stand in this 
Chamber and deliver the State of the Union; and when he talks about 
income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of 
us Democrats--and I hope some Republicans--will stand up and cheer. But 
before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our 
cheers are; we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. 
And the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

                              {time}  1245

  So I say to my fellow Democrats, if cutting SNAP or other programs 
that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, 
any piece of major legislation passed, then we have strayed very, very 
far from our principles. Madam Speaker, again, I want to remind my 
colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an 
increased burden on States, cities and towns to deal with this issue of 
hunger.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are 
hungry, they don't learn in school. When people are hungry, they end up 
going to the emergency room more often. When children are hungry, when 
they get a common cold, they end up staying in the hospital for a 
period of time. That all costs us a great deal in terms of not only 
Federal money but State and local money. So, in my opinion, this is an 
unfunded mandate, and this is a burden on the States.
  Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
and I thank him for his dedication and his passion on this issue that 
people in the United States of America should not go hungry.
  I rise in support of my colleague's point of order. This farm bill 
contains cuts to the food stamp program that will transfer the 
responsibility to States and cities to provide food to their families. 
May I remind the Members of this body that food stamps--our Nation's 
most important anti-hunger program--was just cut 2 months ago in 
November--in November.
  Because of the recent expiration of the Recovery Act provisions, food 
stamps have already been cut by $5 billion for next year and $11 
billion is the cut over 3 years. What does it mean? It means that a 
family of four lost $36--or 16 meals--a month in support. That is 
already the difference between health and hunger.
  Now the savage cuts in this farm bill would push Americans already 
living on the edge that much closer to the brink. Because of the $8.5 
billion in cuts here, 850,000 households--translates into 1.7 million 
Americans--will lose an average of $90 a month or 66 more meals a 
month. Low-income seniors, working poor with families, individuals with 
disabilities and veterans would be particularly impacted by these cruel 
cuts.
  Perhaps some Members have forgotten. That is because we eat well. 
That is because we eat well every day. Members have forgotten hunger is 
an abomination. We are talking about men and women experiencing real 
physical trauma, children who cannot concentrate in school because all 
they can think about is food, and seniors are forced to decide in what 
has been a polar vortex, a virulent winter season, whether or not they 
will go hungry or be cold.
  This is a problem all across the land. In my Connecticut district, 
nearly one in seven households are not sure they can afford enough food 
to feed their families. In Mississippi, 24.5 percent suffer food 
hardship. In West Virginia and Kentucky, 22 percent. In Ohio, nearly 20 
percent, and in California, just over 19 percent.
  The continued existence of hunger in America is a disgrace. That is 
why in the past there has been a strong tradition of bipartisanship on 
fighting hunger and supporting nutrition. This farm bill flies in the 
face of that tradition. It takes food from the poor to pay for crop 
subsidies for the rich.
  Food stamps have one of the lowest error rates of any government 
program. It is a powerful and positive impact on economic growth 
because they get resources into the hands of families who are going to 
spend them right away. The research shows that for every $5 of Federal 
food stamp benefits, it generates nearly twice that in economic 
activity.
  Children's Health Watch, those researchers found that after 
collecting 14 years of data on over 20,000 low-income families that 
when families experienced a loss or reduction in food stamp benefits, 
they are more likely to be food insecure, to be in poor health, and 
their children experience intensified developmental delays relative to 
their peers.
  Most importantly, food stamps are the right thing to do. It is the 
job of a good government to help vulnerable families to get back on 
their feet, and cutting food stamps will cause more hunger and health 
problems for Americans. In the words of Harry Truman:

       Nothing is more important in our national life than the 
     welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first 
     in attaining this welfare.

  This bill--this bill--flies in the face of that. It will cut $8.5 
billion. You couple that with the cuts that have already been made in 
the economic recovery program, and that is almost $20 billion in a cut 
to the food stamp program. Some of my colleagues will say, well, we 
only did 8\1/2\ billion in the farm bill. Let me just tell you: it may 
come from two sources, but the constituency is the same.
  Who are we as a nation? Where are our values? If we can provide crop 
subsidies for the richest farmers in this Nation and tell them that 
they can make $900,000 a year before they will not be able to get a 
subsidy, or 26 individuals who get a premium subsidy for crop insurance 
of at least $1 million a year--those folks are eating, they are high on 
the hog, they got three squares a day. When we provide $1.40--it is 
$1.40 per meal for food stamp beneficiaries--the people at the top end 
don't have an income cap. They don't have any asset test, and that is 
not true for food stamp recipients. We prescribe who can

[[Page H1445]]

receive them. There are income limitations and asset limitations. Who 
are we as a nation? What are we about? Let's not take food out of the 
mouths of families and their children.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of 
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the question before the House is should the 
House now consider H. Res. 465. This point of order, Madam Speaker, is 
a dilatory tactic. I will remind the gentleman that each bill under 
this rule will be separately considered and debatable on the House 
floor.
  Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled 
business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House 
Resolution 465 under clause 9(c) of rule XXI because the resolution 
contains a waiver of all points of order against H.R. 7, the abortion 
bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates clause 9(c) of rule XXI.
  Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate 
on the question of consideration.
  Following that debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the 
resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the conference report on the farm bill 
was made public at around 7:30 last night. With nearly 1,000 pages 
dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance 
to read the entire thing. I'm a conferee, and even I had an extra few 
hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what 
is in this bill? That is why I'm raising this earmarks point of order.
  As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is most 
troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on 
poor people and is this attack on SNAP, a program that does nothing 
more than provide food to people.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter that 
was addressed to Congress from the mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, 
Dallas, the District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, 
Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake 
City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tucson urging us in both 
the House and the Senate to reject these SNAP cuts. These mayors have 
made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people 
that they represent. They have stressed in this letter the importance 
of SNAP to help people to be able to put food on the table for their 
children.
  I also would like to reference a statement from the Food Research and 
Action Center, otherwise known as FRAC. They are urging us to vote 
against this conference committee report if these SNAP cuts remain in 
the bill. They have said that SNAP is essential to the nutrition, the 
health and the well-being of 47 million Americans each month, but every 
participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last 
November 1.
  As the gentlelady from Connecticut made mention of, on November 1, an 
$11 billion cut in SNAP went into effect. All 47 million beneficiaries 
received a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went 
down, and now we are going to pile on. There are some who say, well, it 
doesn't affect all 47 million. It is only going to be about 1 million 
or so people that will be adversely impacted, but those people that 
will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. The November 1 
cut for the average family of three resulted in a $31 a month benefit 
cut. You add this on top of it, and it is another $80 to $90. So that 
family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month.
  What are they going to do? Even before these cuts went into effect, 
they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for 
help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. What are they 
supposed to do? I think in this House of Representatives, I don't care 
what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever 
be acceptable that anybody in this country--the United States of 
America, the richest country in the history of the world--should go 
hungry.
  The fact that we are moving forward with the farm bill--a deal that 
contains this $8.6 billion in cuts--I think is outrageous. I'm all for 
a deal. I want a farm bill. I'm willing to swallow a lot of things in 
this bill that I don't like, but the price of doing that should not be 
to increase hunger and poverty in this country, and that is what this 
bill does.
  We talk about deals. Behind these deals are real people. They are our 
neighbors. They are in every community. There is not a congressional 
district in our country that is hunger free. These people are 
everywhere. We have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. SNAP 
is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs with one of the 
lowest error rates.
  This is important. SNAP in and of itself is not going to solve the 
problem of hunger or poverty. The bottom line is by cutting it the way 
we are doing, we are making things worse for people. I stood on the 
floor today, and I read the descriptions of individuals in 
Massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut 
in their benefit, and their question to me is, what do I do? Where do I 
go? Tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. Tell me how I'm 
going to survive.
  We should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more 
miserable. That is not our job.
  I will also insert for the Record the entire Food Research and Action 
Center statement.
  Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 SNAP 
households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in SNAP 
benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. There is no reason in 
the world that we should be cutting this program. This is not an ATM 
machine to pay for big farm subsidies. This is not an ATM machine to 
make up for the fraud, the waste and the abuse in the crop insurance 
program.
  Again, I will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear 
the President talk about income inequality, and my criticism here, it 
is a bipartisan criticism. I'm critical of the Republicans for the 
cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm bill--up to $40 
billion--and I'm frustrated that there are people in my own party, 
including in this White House, who don't believe this is worth a fight. 
Well, this is worth a fight. If this is not worth a fight, I don't know 
what the hell we are here for. If making sure people in this country 
don't go hungry is not a priority, then I don't know what we are doing 
here.
  We can explain this away, we can rationalize it and justify it. I 
have heard all the talking points. My favorite is that nobody will 
actually lose their benefit.

                              {time}  1300

  What that neglects to tell you is that your benefit will be cut down 
to almost nothing. Yes, they will still get a little benefit, but it 
might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. I mean, is that the best 
we can do, on both sides of the aisle? This never used to be a partisan 
issue. This never used to be a polarizing issue, and now all of a 
sudden it has become one. Again, I plea with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but 
not at this price.
  And I urge the White House to stand up and fight alongside of us on 
this. They should be taking a greater leadership role on this. It is 
not enough to just talk about income inequality; you have to fight for 
it, too.


[[Page H1446]]


         Mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, District of 
           Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, 
           Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, 
           Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and 
           Tucson,
                                                 January 27, 2014.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
         Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
     Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 
         and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Colin Peterson,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Cochran, Chairman 
     Lucas, and Ranking Member Peterson: As mayors of major cities 
     across the United States, we write to express our serious 
     concerns about provisions under discussion in the Farm Bill 
     reauthorization conference that could make it much more 
     difficult for millions of Americans to put food on their 
     tables. These provisions include billions of dollars in cuts 
     to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We 
     urge you to work to remove these cuts to a program that 
     provides essential food support to low-income families and 
     individuals across the country.
       SNAP provides food support for approximately 47 million 
     Americans, more than half of whom are children and seniors. 
     As mayors, every day we see the importance of SNAP benefits 
     and how they have helped millions of Americans to feed their 
     families during an extended period of economic uncertainty 
     and high unemployment. Although the economy is showing signs 
     of recovery, unemployment rates are still above pre-recession 
     levels and we are still faced with rates above the national 
     average in many cities across the country.
       In addition, since every dollar in SNAP benefits generates 
     up to $1.80 in local economic activity, cuts will also have a 
     negative impact on our urban economies.
       At this critical juncture in our recovery, we urge you 
     eliminate changes to the SNAP program that will reduce a 
     support as basic as food to so many struggling Americans and 
     could undermine our local economies.
           Sincerely,
         Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City; Karen Freeman-
           Wilson, Mayor, City of Gary; Todd Gloria, Interim 
           Mayor, City of San Diego; Melvin L. ``Kip'' Holden, 
           Mayor, City of Baton Rouge; Edwin M. Lee, Mayor, City 
           of San Francisco; Bill de Blasio, Mayor, City of New 
           York; Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles; 
           Vincent Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia; Kevin 
           Johnson, Mayor, City of Sacramento; Nancy McFarlane, 
           Mayor, City of Raleigh; Ed Murray, Mayor, City of 
           Seattle; Mike Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas; Pedro E. 
           Segarra, Mayor, City of Hartford; Angel Taveras, Mayor, 
           City of Providence; A C Wharton, Jr., Mayor, City of 
           Memphis; Svante L. Myrick, Mayor, City of Ithaca; 
           Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor, City of Tucson; Paul R. 
           Soglin, Mayor, City of Madison; Martin J. Walsh, Mayor, 
           City of Boston.
                                  ____

     From: On Behalf of Food Research and Action Center
     Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014
     To: Ellen Teller
     Subject: FRAC Statement on the Farm Bill

      [From FRAC, Food Research and Action Center, Jan. 28, 2014]

  SNAP Cuts in Farm Bill Will Lead to Less Food for Vulnerable People

       Washington, DC.--The Farm Bill moving from conference 
     committee to the floor of the House and Senate will cut SNAP 
     benefits to an estimated 850,000 households by an average of 
     $90/month. The Food Research and Action Center is encouraging 
     members to vote ``No'' on the bill because of the pain this 
     provision will cause for so many of the most vulnerable 
     members of our society, making monthly food allotments fall 
     even further short of what is needed.
       SNAP is essential to the nutrition, health and well-being 
     of 47 million Americans each month. But every participant 
     suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last 
     November 1st. Demand at emergency food providers around the 
     country has skyrocketed. Now the Farm Bill, if passed, will 
     considerably worsen the already bad situation for nearly a 
     million households.
       The SNAP cuts in the conference bill amount to $8.6 billion 
     over 10 years. The bill has modest boosts in nutrition 
     supports in respects (e.g. for The Emergency Food Assistance 
     Program (TEFAP), for ``double bucks'' farmers' market 
     programs, for improved SNAP education and training programs, 
     for Healthy Food Financing). These are small positive steps 
     but are far from commensurate to the SNAP damage in the bill.
       We appreciate that key conferees and other Senators and 
     House members spoke and acted to reject the far larger 
     harmful cuts proposed by the House. But FRAC believes the 
     $8.6 billion SNAP cut is deeply harmful.
       This cut has been opposed by major newspapers, anti-poverty 
     and anti-hunger groups and food banks across the county. It 
     is inconsistent with polls showing voters--across party, age 
     and other demographics--reject food stamp cuts. It is 
     inconsistent with the President's proposals to improve, not 
     harm, SNAP benefits. In a bitter irony, the bill goes to the 
     floor almost exactly a year after an expert Institute of 
     Medicine committee found that SNAP benefits are already 
     inadequate for most families to purchase an adequate, healthy 
     diet; and it comes in the same month that researchers issued 
     a new study showing that low-income people have increased 
     hypoglycemia-related hospital admissions late in the month 
     because they run out of food. The SNAP cuts will be a blow to 
     health and nutrition, and to the government's long-term 
     fiscal well-being as well.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I am proud once again to join my 
colleague. I, too, want a farm bill. In fact, I had the honor of 
helping to negotiate the 2008 farm bill, the nutrition portion of it, 
where we maintained that historic coalition between the safety net for 
agriculture and the safety net for nutrition.
  I think it is almost unbelievable that we got a thousand-page bill, 
and I just want to say to the American public here that they should ask 
Members of Congress whether or not they have read the bill. We went 
over and over this with regard to the health care bill. Some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle kept asking us if we have 
read the bill. No one has really read this bill. There were four people 
who negotiated this work. There could well be significant earmarks in 
this effort.
  Let me point out the reverse Robin Hood legislation here. It steals 
food from the poor to help pay for handouts to wealthy agribusiness. 
Let me just give a couple of examples. In violation of the 
congressional rule that provisions passed by both bodies should not be 
changed, the conference, four people, more than doubled the annual 
primary payments from $50,000 to $125,000, or $250,000 a couple. They 
reopened the loophole that was closed in the House and in the Senate 
that allows wealthy farmers to collect far more than the nominal 
payment limit: $50,000. They raised it to $125,000 for an individual; 
to a couple, $250,000. House and Senate on a bipartisan basis closed 
the loophole.
  This allows payments to be collected by multiple people on the farm. 
What we have today is eight people can collect a $125,000 payment, 
leading to a million-dollar subsidy for a farm. Seven of those eight 
people never have to put their foot on the farm. It is called padding 
the payroll. ``Farmers,'' they don't have to undergo any income means 
testing to receive a subsidy.
  The Durbin-Coburn amendment in the Senate would reduce the level of 
Federal premium support for crop insurance participants with an 
adjusted gross income of $750,000. The conference report--four people--
determined that they would make that cap at $900,000. Again, the 
wealthiest people in the Nation.
  Let me tell you about crop insurance. I don't know that the American 
public knows that the Federal Government, you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, 
you pick up 60 percent of the cost of that crop insurance. That doesn't 
include administrative fees. There are 26 individuals today who get at 
least a million dollars in premium subsidy. We can't find out who they 
are. They could be Members of Congress, because they are protected: 26 
individuals. We have almost 50 million people who are on the food stamp 
program, 16 million of whom are children. And there is no fraud and 
abuse in this program, the way there is in the crop insurance program; 
and yet we want to take food out of the mouths of families and children 
in this Nation. It is the wrong thing to do. This bill should be 
rejected.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is, Should the House now 
consider H. Res. 465? This point of order,

[[Page H1447]]

Madam Speaker, is a dilatory tactic. None of the provisions contained 
in the underlying measures meet the definition of an earmark under the 
rule.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary certified that H.R. 7 
contains no congressional earmarks by including the following earmark 
statement in the report accompanying this bill, which was filed on 
January 23, 2014:

       In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, H.R. 7 does not contain any 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f) or 9(g) of 
     rule XXI.

  The following was included in the Joint Explanatory Statement for the 
farm bill:

       Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate, neither this conference report nor the accompanying 
     joint statement of managers contains any congressional 
     earmarks, congressionally directed spending items, limited 
     tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as defined in such 
     rules.

  I also remind the gentleman that this conference agreement is a 
bipartisan and bicameral measure. Nine of the 10 Democrat conferees 
from the Agriculture Committee have signed the conference report. The 
conference report was made available to all Members and the public 
yesterday, in full compliance of the 3-day availability rule.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question 
of consideration of the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, 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

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 465 provides for a closed rule allowing 
for consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, 
and provides for separate consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management 
Act of 2013, under a standard conference report rule.
  Madam Speaker, since 1976, the Hyde amendment--which prohibits the 
Federal funding of abortions--has been included in relevant 
appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and 
supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.
  NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting 
public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. 
That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a 
publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term.
  In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde 
amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. 
This means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the 
Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this life-saving 
amendment to become permanent law.
  When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established 
laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy 
that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health 
plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.
  Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, 
bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for 
publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized 
massive public subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase 
private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other 
words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for 
elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde 
amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, which means it will 
apply longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and 
Federal Employees Health Benefits, as well as to new programs created 
by ObamaCare. H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. 
It does so by prohibiting all Federal funding for abortion; prohibiting 
Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for 
abortion; prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and 
prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.
  This bill applies to the Federal funding of abortions, except in 
cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. 
This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan 
agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced 
to fund thousands of abortions. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues 
to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I will attach extraneous material to this part of my speech 
since we only have 30 minutes on two legislative matters.
  Madam Speaker, at a time when millions are struggling to find work, 
the majority has decided that their top priority, one of the first 10 
bills of the session that they number, is to continue the decades-long 
assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.
  Before I go any further, let me be clear: this bill is a hoax. 
Federal taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion. This has been true 
for more than three decades. Under the Hyde amendment, the use of 
Federal dollars to pay for abortions is flatly prohibited except in the 
case of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
  Thus, despite what the majority may claim, H.R. 7 is not a solution 
to a problem but a poorly, thinly veiled attempt to chip away at 
ObamaCare and women's reproductive rights, another battle in the war 
against women.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is a reflection of a majority out of touch with 
the American people and struggling to understand fundamental truths 
about reproductive health. And we really mean struggle.
  This extreme legislation was originally sponsored by a man, 
originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out 
of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. This 
has been the problem for a long time--men in blue suits and red ties 
determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own 
health.
  One such Republican man has declared that ``wife is to voluntarily 
submit'' to her husband in a book that he recently wrote. Another has 
declared, and this is a new one, this is not the one from the last 
election, ``the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very 
low.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, the men who are making these 
decisions simply don't know what they are talking about.
  Meanwhile, a Republican man on the Judiciary Committee recently said 
that today's legislation is good for reducing the unemployment numbers 
because:

       Having new children brought into the world is not harmful 
     to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for care 
     and services and so on that need to be provided for a lot of 
     people to raise children.

  Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of that statement is it comes from a 
majority that staunchly opposes increasing any funding for pre-K 
education or paid sick leave for working parents, and the same majority 
cutting nutritional benefits for the working poor under the farm bill 
that we will consider tomorrow. Such a hypocritical and mean-spirited 
agenda reminds me of another quote from former Congressman Barney Frank 
who once famously said that

[[Page H1448]]

the anti-choice legislators ``believe that life begins at conception 
but ends at birth.'' In other words, once it is born, they don't want 
to have anything to do with it. In looking at the majority's 
legislative priorities, it is almost impossible to disagree.
  Madam Speaker, a new poll shows that 64 percent of Americans agree 
that ``decisions on abortion should be made by a woman and her 
doctor.'' The government should never have gotten into the business of 
being between the woman and her doctor, or anyone else she wants to 
consult. Only 24 percent say ``government has a right and obligation to 
pass restrictions on abortion.'' Perhaps that is why the majority is 
passing H.R. 7 on the same day as the State of the Union, because we 
know it is not going anywhere. We know that the Senate will not take 
this up; and if by some strange set of events it should pass the 
Senate, which it won't, the President would never sign it.

                              {time}  1315

  But anyway, we bring it up on the same day of the State of the Union, 
rushing it through Congress to make some kind of point to some people 
somewhere before they leave on a weekend retreat and making one rule to 
consider two drastically different bills even though we would have had 
plenty of time to have had two rules here.
  Included under today's rule is the conference report on the farm 
bill, a major piece of legislation that impacts all aspects of the 
economy. Surely it deserves a full and open debate before its final 
passage.
  Instead, the majority is proposing another closed and House rule-
breaking process because we have not had time to read it. This will 
also be their 100th closed rule since taking control in 2011, and 
allowing just an hour of general debate for each bill and 15 minutes 
basically on the rule on our side of the House.
  If one wonders at the lack of productivity from this Congress, just 
look at the closed and partisan legislative process pursued by the 
majority and you will quickly understand.
  Madam Speaker, with all of the major issues facing our country, 
attacking women's health care shows just how extreme--and extremely out 
of touch--the Washington Republicans are because the Republicans at 
home don't feel that way.
  We should be passing legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy 
and to level the playing field for working women, not taking the 
country backwards with bills that attack women's rights.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, for more than three decades, the so-called Hyde 
Amendment has flatly banned the use of Federal dollars to pay for 
abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the 
mother is endangered. In part, the Hyde Amendment reads, ``None of the 
funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund 
to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for 
health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.''
  Despite the Majority's claims to the contrary, today's legislation 
goes far beyond the definitive language of the Hyde Amendment in an 
attempt to restrict a woman's reproductive health options under private 
insurance plans and her ability to spend private dollars on a 
constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care.
  At the heart of this legislative attack is the extremely broad and 
vague language included in today's bill that redefines the definition 
of ``federal funding.'' Under this legislation, the definition of 
Federal funding would be expanded to include the benefit of a tax 
expenditure. While this terminology may seem complex, its consequences 
are quite simple.
  If this bill becomes law, a woman purchasing health insurance that 
includes abortion coverage will be denied a premium tax credit that 
helps make coverage affordable in the first place. Facing such a 
circumstance, she would be financially incentivized to buy a cheaper 
health insurance plan that does not include abortion services. As more 
women give up health insurance plans with abortion coverage, health 
insurance companies will stop offering such plans. Very quickly, it 
will become both prohibitively expensive and difficult to purchase 
abortion coverage in a health insurance plan.
  In so doing, this bill takes particular aim at the reproductive 
rights of poor women. Women who are struggling to get by rely almost 
exclusively upon insurance premium subsidies to reduce the cost of 
health care while more affluent women can often access additional 
benefits such as Flexible Spending Accounts to reduce their health care 
costs. While insurance premium subsidies are eliminated under today's 
bill Flexible Spending Accounts are left untouched.
  We should not be restricting either of these tax benefits that serve 
America's women, but it is particularly immoral for the Majority to be 
targeting the most vulnerable women among us.
  Sadly, targeting the reproductive health care of poor women is 
nothing new for the Republican Party. As far back as the 1970's Henry 
Hyde infamously stated ``I would certainly like to prevent, if I could 
legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class 
woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is 
the [Medicaid] bill,'' he continued--which as we know only affects low-
income women and families.
  In addition to taking a tax benefit away from those struggling to get 
by, today's bill would raise taxes on small businesses in another 
attempt to make force small businesses to drop insurance coverage. 
Under this legislation, small businesses that offer health insurance 
plans that include abortion coverage would be ineligible for the Small 
Business Tax Credit. Currently, 87 percent of all employer-sponsored 
insurance plans include coverage for abortion, and the Small Business 
Tax Credit can be worth 35-50% of the cost of a small business' 
premiums. Taking away this tax credit would be a major tax INCREASE on 
small businesses for simply keeping the same insurance coverage that 
they already have.
  In short, today's legislation is an attempt to rewrite our Nation's 
laws so that it is financially impossible for a woman to access a 
private health insurance plan that provides abortion coverage. And it 
is yet another attack on women's rights from a Majority that seems to 
be struggling to understand the most fundamental aspects of an issue 
important to America's women.
  Indeed, when it comes to the issue of reproductive rights, one member 
of the Majority has declared that ``the incidence of rape resulting in 
pregnancy are very low.'' Another member of the Majority has declared 
that today's legislation is good for reducing unemployment, because 
``having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job 
creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and 
services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise 
children.''
  Quotes such as these make it clear how such extreme--and extremely 
misguided--legislation has made it to the floor today. They also remind 
us why it is so important that the Majority allows an open and 
transparent legislative process so that such dangerous legislation 
never sees the light of day.
  Unfortunately, it is under a closed legislative process that 
variations of this legislation have been introduced and pushed through 
the House of Representatives in recent years. Repeatedly, the Majority 
has written similar legislation and included provisions that attempted 
to redefine rape. The Majority, who just weeks ago decried the role of 
the IRS in Obamacare, has even introduced a variation of this 
legislation that empowered the IRS to audit any woman who has had an 
abortion. This in no way should be the responsibility of the IRS and 
any attempt to impose the IRS in a woman's medical decisions is nothing 
but an attack on her constitutionally protected rights.
  Once again, it is under a closed legislative process--and an 
abandonment of regular order--that we find ourselves here today 
considering yet another misguided attempt to restrict women's rights.
  In fact, while today's legislation bears the same name, it is not the 
same bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this 
month.
  Instead, it is an original Rules Committee print that was first made 
available less than a week ago and includes significant legislative 
changes, such as the addition of text from two bills that have never 
received any committee debate, review or mark-up.
  Furthermore, the Majority is asking that we consider this new bill 
under another closed rule. If we do, it will be the 100th closed rule 
for a Majority that just concluded the most closed session in history.
  Madam Speaker, it comes as little surprise that bad legislative 
process has produced another bad bill.
  Over and over again, the Majority has shown no interest in opening up 
the legislative process and coming to the table to work on commonsense 
legislation with members from the other side of the aisle. My 
Democratic colleagues and I believe that we should be voting on bills 
to create jobs, grow our economy and level the playing field for 
working women--but we will never be able to do so until the Majority 
allows us to truly participate in the legislative process.

[[Page H1449]]

  Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the farm bill 
conference report that is also brought to the floor by this resolution. 
Having only received the 900-plus page bill last night Members have had 
little chance to read the bill. In fact, as my friend Mr. McGovern has 
noted, even conferees who supposedly negotiated this deal were not 
given a chance to read it!
  But the one policy I know is included in the conference report is a 
massive, $8.6 billion cut in SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' 
Families receiving SNAP benefits already saw a cut in their monthly 
food budgets of approximately $30 less than three months ago. For some 
families, this will mean an additional cut of up to $90--a devastating 
blow for a low-income household.
  In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's 
rule, so that we can get to work on real solutions for the American 
people and put an end to the Majority's dangerous attacks on a woman's 
constitutionally protected right to choose, as well as their disregard 
for the plight of the poor and those searching for work.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding. I want to thank Virginia Foxx for her extraordinary 
leadership on behalf of the weakest and the most vulnerable among us.
  Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or 
chemically poisons an unborn child to death, Americans have 
consistently demanded that public funds not pay for abortion.
  I would note parenthetically--and we just saw this last week--since 
1973, some 56 million babies, unborn babies, have been killed by 
abortion, a number, a death toll that equates with the entire 
population of England.
  Madam Speaker, a huge majority--well over 60 percent according to the 
most polls--show that women and men in this country don't want to be 
complicit in abortion by subsidizing it. A December 2009 Quinnipiac 
poll found that 72 percent opposed allowing abortion to be paid for by 
public funds under health care reform.
  Another poll asked: If the choice were up to you, would you want your 
own insurance policy to include abortion? Sixty-nine percent of women 
said no.
  Madam Speaker, this is because an ever-growing number of people 
recognize that abortion isn't health care; it kills babies and it hurts 
women.
  We live in an age of ultrasound imaging: the ultimate window to the 
womb and the child who resides there. We are in the midst of a fetal 
health revolution, an explosion of benign life-affirming interventions 
designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives of these 
youngest patients. Abortion is the antithesis of health care.
  H.R. 7 will help save lives and it will reduce abortions. The 
Judiciary Committee report accompanying H.R. 7 notes that the high 
demand has saved over 1 million children, and the number is probably 
far larger because one in four women who would have had procured an 
abortion don't go through with it if public funding isn't available.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals:
  One, make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding 
prohibition permanent;
  Two, ensure that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the 
Hyde amendment, as promised by the President;
  And three, provide full disclosure, transparency, and the prominent 
display of the extent to which any health care insurance plan on the 
exchange funds abortion.
  Madam Speaker, in the runup to passage of the Affordable Care Act, 
America was repeatedly assured by President Obama himself, including in 
a speech to a joint session of Congress in September of 2009, that: 
``Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.''
  On March 24, 2010, President Obama issued an executive order that 
said the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment 
restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions 
to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Nothing could have been 
clearer. That seemed to be ironclad.
  As far as my colleagues will recall, the Hyde amendment has two 
principles: it not only prohibits direct funding for abortion, but also 
bans funding for insurance plans that include abortion, except in cases 
of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  We now know that the Hyde amendment principles have not been extended 
to the newly created health insurance exchanges. H.R. 7 seeks to 
correct that.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, Madam Speaker, massive amounts of 
public funds in the form of tax credits are today paying for, and will 
soon pay for, insurance plans that include elective abortion. That 
violates the Hyde amendment and that violates the President's solemn 
promise.
  As we all know, the new law is poised to give billions of dollars--
they call them tax credits--directly to insurance companies on behalf 
of people who purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget 
Office counts the cost of these so-called tax credits under the ACA as 
either direct spending or revenue reductions. Direct spending involves 
funds taken from where? The Treasury, to subsidize health insurance 
coverage. According to the CBO, the ACA premium assistance credits will 
cost the Federal Government $796 billion over 10 years.
  Absent repeal or reform of the law, taxpayers will then be forced to 
foot the bill for abortion. Again, an overwhelming percentage of the 
people have consistently polled they don't want to be complicit in the 
taking of human life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee.
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending the unemployment 
insurance benefits for 1.6 million Americans instead of what is a 
radical Republican assault, a continuous assault, on women's health 
care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman 
Clark. 
  (Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement into the Record in support of extending 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman 
Tsongas.
  (Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Madam Speaker, I want to share emails from just three of the many 
people I hear from each week who have been personally affected by House 
Republicans' decision to block a vote on extending unemployment 
insurance.
  Katie from Chelmsford: ``I was laid off in April and have looked for 
a job since then--with no luck--In spite of the news reports about the 
economy and how great the job market is, we all know that is not true. 
I know so many folks still looking for jobs in MA--all well educated, 
well qualified good people! . . . I truly hope unemployment benefits 
are extended.''
  Clark from Westford: ``I am writing you regarding the stopping of the 
Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program. I am a married 
father of 2 children in local area colleges living in Westford, MA and 
rely on this emergency money to survive. I have

[[Page H1450]]

been able to work 8 months this year over 3 jobs but all were temporary 
positions that did not lead to full-time employment. The economy is not 
yet hot enough to create enough full-time jobs and without this money 
our family will not make it. Please find the money to pay for extending 
this program as it is saving our lives . . . literally!''
  Doreen from Lowell: ``I'm a single mom of a great 14 year old 
daughter who is an honor student! (Very proud.) In May of 2013 I was 
laid off after 23 wonderful years of employment with the same company. 
This has been a life changing time for [my daughter] and myself, 
however we have taken the change with nothing less than a positive 
attitude. We have made sacrifices such as canceling our cable and 
Internet as well as making cuts from cell phone service to more frugal 
grocery shopping.
  ``I found out today that after 6 months of unemployment it has ended! 
I received a letter just two months ago that I would be extended until 
May of 2014, however because of Federal budget cuts this is not 
happening. I've been looking and applying for jobs faithfully on a 
weekly basis with no luck. Nothing comes close to what I was making 
before, I have a mortgage by myself as a single mom . . .
  ``I've been proud of myself for this accomplishment and being a 
positive strong role model has always been important to me for my 
daughter. I don't understand how an extension can just be cancelled 
like that! My daughter and I are now just our small savings account 
away from being homeless and that's a shame. I can only hope that 
someone in Congress is listening to us hard working people and will 
step up and do something about this. It upsets me to think after 23 
years of service I can't lean on my government for support. I don't 
expect to be on unemployment for long but unfortunately 6 months wasn't 
enough, it's still tough out there! I really appreciate you taking the 
time to read this email and please, please, please be my voice and make 
them hear me.''
  I urge my colleagues to pass an extension now and help hardworking 
people throughout our nation avoid economic disaster.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from California, Congressman Takano.
  (Mr. TAKANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Congresswoman Lujan 
Grisham.
  (Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico asked and was given 
permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I also seek 
unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of 
extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans, including 
nearly 7,500 New Mexico job seekers, instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Johnson.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will first make a statement.
  The Member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration 
of sentiment toward the question under debate, but should not embellish 
the request with extended oratory.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement into the Record in support of extending 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights. H.R. 7 is 
enumerated appropriately because it reflects the priorities of this 
Congress.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  For what purpose does the gentlewoman from North Carolina seek 
recognition?
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair to reiterate 
her statement made just a few minutes ago about the extent of the 
remarks that may be made.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman 
Esty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from New York 
will be charged due to the embellishment of the gentleman from Georgia.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized.
  (Ms. ESTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESTY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Al Green.
  (Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement into the Record in support of extending 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.
  (Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement into the Record in support of extending 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman 
Cicilline.
  (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson 
Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen.
  (Mr. VAN HOLLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican 
assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Eliot 
Engel.
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance for 1.6 million Americans. We really have to have compassion 
for people. People are starving. We need to help them. That is what 
Congress should be all about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of embellishment by the gentleman 
from New York will be charged to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Alcee 
Hastings.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to

[[Page H1451]]

insert my statement into the Record in support of extending 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you to the gentlelady from North 
Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, we stand in this Hall, and many times it is spoken of 
the history that goes on here and of the things that have been done, 
and often it echos through time--the Speakers, the Presidents, the 
others who have spoken here. Today, I think, as we talk about this, 
there is an echo that should be coming forth, spoken in the Chamber 
that was spoken by this, our administration and our President, who 
said, One more misunderstanding I want to clear up. Adding, No Federal 
dollars will be used to fund abortions, and conscience laws will remain 
in place.
  To me, that still echoes in this Chamber.
  I rise today as a cosponsor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. I rise in strong support of 
the bill and the underlying rule. I share the belief of many taxpayers, 
which is that life is a gift worthy of our protection, not something to 
be snuffed out when deemed inconvenient or challenging. I rise in 
support of this bill on behalf of those who do not yet have a voice--
the yet to be born daughters and sons of our Nation.
  For me, this issue is very personal. When my wife was pregnant with 
our first child, we learned that our daughter, Jordan, was affected 
with spina bifida. When we were dealing with the struggle and were 
excited about her birth, we were shocked when people came to us after 
hearing of Jordan's diagnosis and said we have a choice about whether 
to keep our child. We knew that Jordan was a gift from God and that 
there was a plan and purpose for her life. We believe of that fact more 
strongly than ever today, and we cannot imagine life without Jordan.
  I know my family is not alone. Many folks have welcomed children in 
the midst of difficult circumstances, not because it was easy but 
because it was right, for when we deny the humanity of the unborn, we 
betray our own. Every member of civil society has a sacred 
responsibility to protect the lives of children.
  Today, we have the opportunity to affirm the responsibility by 
passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance 
Full Disclosure Act. This bill helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
directed to care that preserves and improves lives, not to a procedure 
that guarantees death. On behalf of the millions of Americans who 
object to abortion on demand, I urge this body to prevent taxpayer 
dollars from funding such abortions.
  As has been said, life matters, and promises matter, and echoes of 
this Chamber matter as well, especially when spoken by the President.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule and give the House a vote on a 
bill, written by Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Levin, to extend emergency 
unemployment benefits paid for with savings from the farm bill that, it 
seems, this House will pass today.
  To discuss his bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, let me express very personally why we are 
asking for a ``no'' on the previous question.
  Unemployment insurance has lifted 11 million people from poverty 
since 2008. It kept 2.5 million people from poverty in 2012. So, for so 
many people in this country today, there is a personal emergency. Since 
the end of this program, December 28, they have been facing bills to 
pay--utility bills, house payment bills, rental bills, money for gas to 
keep looking for work. These are hardworking Americans who are facing 
the winds of poverty.
  One of them today is with me for the State of the Union--Josie 
Maisano, from Michigan. She will tell you, as others will today at a 
press conference, that there is an emergency. There is an emergency for 
them. Extending UI is a moral American imperative. It is also a 
national economic benefit.
  The Speaker asked for an offset. We are proposing one. So let us 
today have the chance to bring to the floor a bill to extend 
unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans, growing 72,000 every 
week.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It is a good bill, an important 
bill, that takes critical steps to protect the lives of the innocent 
unborn and the conscience rights of millions of Americans. Before 
discussing the bill, I think it is important to recall some important 
history that was discussed previously.
  On Saturday, March 20, 2010, the President of the United States 
announced a so-called ``agreement'' on his Affordable Care Act. In 
part, because of this agreement supposedly protecting Americans' 
conscience rights, ObamaCare narrowly passed and was signed into law.
  Madam Speaker, the so-called ``Stupak agreement'' was a charade--it 
did not protect our conscience rights; it did not stop the Federal 
funding of abortion. In fact, it did the very opposite. It was hidden 
behind a veil of secrecy and accounting gimmicks, and because of this 
charade, we are here today.
  H.R. 7 is very simple. It does exactly what the administration hoped 
we would believe they were doing in the Stupak agreement, and it 
answers the fundamental question: How do we protect the moral beliefs 
of a majority of Americans on the wrenching issue of taking the lives 
of the innocent unborn? The answer is clear: We should not force people 
to pay for what they do not believe in. We should stop Federal 
bureaucrats from using Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to pay for 
abortions, and we should allow Americans to exercise their God-given 
rights of conscience.
  The American people are opposed to using taxpayer dollars to pay for 
the taking of innocent human life. We know this from the thousands of 
constituents who contact each of our offices. We know this from the 
hundreds and thousands of Americans who descended upon this Capitol and 
State capitals across the Nation in March for Lives just last week, and 
we know this from the 90-plus lawsuits that have been filed by 
organizations on religious liberty grounds, like the Little Sisters of 
the Poor, Wheaton College, Hobby Lobby, and Conestoga Wood. The list 
goes on and on.
  We know this in our hearts. It is simply wrong to force people to pay 
for abortions--something that violates their consciences, their 
fundamental beliefs and religious liberties.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  (Mr. HORSFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment 
insurance benefits for the 1.6 million Americans instead of this 
radical Republican assault on women's health care rights in our great 
country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend.
  Madam Speaker, what we are seeing here is an abuse of process. We 
have one rule governing a bill that is an assault on women's health 
care rights, combined with the same rule for a 900-page farm bill that 
was filed at 7:30 last night. I know a lot of people around here claim 
to be speed readers, but we are supposed to have a vote on the farm 
bill on Wednesday. Some people may decide to vote for it, and some 
people may decide to vote against it.
  What we are asking, Madam Speaker, is that we should all agree that 
this

[[Page H1452]]

House--Republicans and Democrats alike--should have a chance to vote on 
a bill that says we will take the savings from cutting back on 
agriculture subsidies and use those savings to pay for an extension of 
emergency unemployment insurance for over 1.5 million Americans who 
lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there looking 
for work every day in an economy where there are still three people 
looking for every one job. That is what we are asking for, Madam 
Speaker, with respect to defeating the previous question and letting us 
have a vote.
  Now, the Speaker has said repeatedly over the last couple of weeks 
that he would be open to extending unemployment insurance if we would 
find a way to pay for it. We have a way to pay for it. Mr. Levin and I 
went to the Rules Committee and said, Okay. Let's let the whole House 
vote today after the farm bill passes, if it does pass on Wednesday, 
and say, Let's use those savings for this important purpose. They said 
no. They didn't want this House to have that right. So now each of us--
Republicans and Democrats alike--will have the opportunity to vote to 
decide whether this body can decide to spend the savings from cutting 
ag subsidies to help 1.5 million people in their districts and around 
the country who are struggling right now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend.
  By the way, it doesn't just help those struggling families. The 
Congressional Budget Office says it helps all of us--it helps the small 
businesses and merchants in our communities--because, if those 
struggling families can't pay the rent or the mortgage or go out and 
buy groceries, who does it hurt? It also hurts the local merchants and 
small businesses.
  So, Madam Speaker, for goodness sakes, if people want to vote against 
the idea of using the savings from cutting the ag subsidies to help 1.3 
million Americans--if you want to vote ``no''--go for it, but for 
goodness sakes, let the people's House have that vote. Let the people's 
House decide whether we want to help 1.3 million Americans. I hope this 
will weigh heavily on the conscience of the House.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and 
every American watching at home that normal unemployment benefits 
remain in effect for all Americans in need. What has expired is the 
additional emergency unemployment compensation that goes above and 
beyond the normal compensation. This emergency compensation was put in 
place during the economic downturn and was always intended to be 
temporary. In fact, we have been told that the recession is over and 
that it has been over for a long time. Republicans want to help create 
jobs, and we call on the Senate to act on the bills we have sent them, 
and we will do just that.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, as an OB/GYN physician who has 
delivered close to 5,000 babies, I strongly support the sanctity of 
life and, therefore, H.R. 7.
  Since 1976, Congress has prevented taxpayer funding for abortion. 
Unfortunately, this door was reopened with the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act. This misguided law, in addition to causing 
incredible harm to our health care system, has potentially put 
taxpayers on the hook for funding the termination of innocent life. 
That is why H.R. 7 is so important. It explicitly states that taxpayer 
dollars should not be used to fund abortions.
  I am not here today making a point. I am here on this floor as a 
physician, trying to save lives. Abortion is not a business our 
government should be involved in. 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 ensure full legal 
protections to those who are waiting to be born. This starts with 
legislation like H.R. 7.
  One of our 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 born.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, let me give myself just a half a second 
to say that, again, we hear how important it is until a child is born, 
but if it is unemployed later, it is not going to get to eat as long as 
we have this majority.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
to the underlying legislation.
  Forty-one years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that women have the 
right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. Yet, 
once again, this House is choosing to senselessly attack women's 
rights.
  This bill would restrict a woman's right to make personal medical 
decisions by bullying small businesses to either drop comprehensive 
health coverage for their female employees or lose tax credits. 
Furthermore, it places restrictions on women using private funds to buy 
private insurance for their most personal medical decisions. This bill 
is nothing more than an unprecedented, mean-spirited attempt to shame 
women out of being in control of their own health.
  We can and must do better, which is why I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this effort to restrict health care for women.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that our colleagues are 
doing all that they can to portray this bill as an attack on women's 
rights. It is not that at all. I appreciate all of my colleagues who 
have spoken so eloquently on our side of the aisle about what this bill 
truly is.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
yielding.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion Act, which will make policies like the Hyde amendment 
permanent and government-wide, and remove funding for insurance plans 
that include abortions from the Affordable Care Act.
  Just last week, we marked the 41st anniversary of the Roe decision, 
and we memorialized the 56 million children whose lives have been 
sacrificed for that decision.
  I am a proud defender of life. I represent a State that stands 
strongly for life. I understand that the very first inalienable right 
in our Declaration of Independence is the right to life. But I also 
acknowledge that there is wide disagreement on that subject throughout 
our Nation and throughout this House. I recognize there is wide debate 
on when life may begin.
  Surely, we can agree that there should be no taxpayer dollars used to 
fund abortion procedures. There should be no taxpayer forced to pay for 
health care through ObamaCare that funds abortion against his or her 
will.
  That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 7, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the final bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Currently, Congress imposes unfair limitations on insurance coverage 
of abortions through the Hyde amendment for low-income women, which 
should be, quite frankly, repealed. Today, Republicans are asking us to 
go even further--to create an unprecedented interference in the lives 
of women and their families by restricting coverage for women's health 
in private insurance plans.
  Instead of working together to extend unemployment benefits for the 
more than 1.3 million unemployed Americans, here we are debating 
another dangerous and divisive attempt to strip away the rights of 
women, instead of creating economic opportunity and jobs. Here you go 
again, attacking women's health care, not to mention that this bill 
singles out an attack on low-income women in the District of Columbia 
by permanently prohibiting the District from spending its own locally 
raised funds on abortions for low-income women. You would not want us

[[Page H1453]]

to restrict anything in your districts where privately raised local 
funds are used.
  This is just another battle in the war on women. It has got to stop. 
We must stop these attacks on women's health.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will say it again. We are not attacking women's health care with 
this rule and this legislation.
  H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many 
longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both 
Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses.
  The majority of taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as 
demonstrated in poll after poll. A recent Marist poll showed that 58 
percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer 
dollars for abortions.
  During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 
percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an 
abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother.
  A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed 67 percent of 
respondents opposed Federal funding of abortion.
  An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed 
public funding 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 any measure that would ``require 
people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''
  Madam Speaker, it is clear. The American people do not want the 
government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent 
human life. Period.
  Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude 
abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade 
association:

       Most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage, 
     but most employers choose not to offer it as a part of their 
     benefits package.

  Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous 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 has 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 a majority of the 
American people. It is time to restore the status quo on government 
funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent 
across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and H.R. 7.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, first, let me just point out 
that despite what the gentlelady from North Carolina just said, both 
President Obama and his administration, as well as Leader Pelosi, 
strongly oppose H.R. 7.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding 
for Abortion Act. Despite the misleading title, this bill is not about 
Federal funding for abortions. It is about intervening in women's 
personal health care decisions.
  Forty-one years ago, the Supreme Court confirmed in Roe v. Wade a 
constitutional right for women to keep our decisions about our body 
between us and our doctors. Yet here we are, more than four decades 
later, confronted with another draconian bill that encroaches on that 
right.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of Federal 
dollars for abortions. The Affordable Care Act is compliant with the 
Hyde amendment. The Affordable Care Act is law. The bill before us is 
nothing more than a deceitful attempt to place further restrictions on 
women's access to health care services.
  Unfortunately, these kinds of baseless attacks on women's 
reproductive rights continue to be led by Republican men. It is clear 
that the all-male Republican members on the House Judiciary Committee 
who approved this bill would rather focus their time and American 
taxpayer dollars on restricting a woman's right to make her own medical 
decisions rather than confront our Nation's most pressing problems.
  You would think that Republicans would realize we have a few more 
things to focus on that are a higher priority than whether or not women 
can make their own health care decisions. These men do not represent or 
reflect the voices of women in America. That is why as a mother, a 
lawmaker, and as a woman, I stand before you today to say: No more.
  We should oppose H.R. 7.
  We have worked too hard to secure freedom and independence for women 
in this country; and
  We have come too far to let our nation inch back to the dark ages 
when barriers stood between women and their Constitutional rights.
  When I think about the kind of world I want my daughters to live in, 
it's one where they have access to comprehensive, affordable, and safe 
health care services.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for women 
by voting ``no'' on H.R. 7.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 7.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for 
her extraordinary leadership.
  Madam Speaker, let me again convey to my colleagues the fact that 
H.R. 7 seeks to make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion 
funding prohibitions permanent.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, as part of the omnibus bill, Members on 
both sides of the aisle voted to renew the pro-life riders for another 
year. Title I of H.R. 7 are those separate riders made permanent. That 
is all it is.
  Secondly, it ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms 
to the Hyde amendment, as promised by the President of the United 
States.
  As the previous speaker just said, she believes it comports with the 
Hyde amendment. It doesn't.
  The Hyde amendment is made up of two parts, I remind my colleagues: 
direct funding for abortion and no funds to any insurance policy, any 
coverage, any plan that includes abortion.
  It couldn't be simpler. It is right there in the Hyde amendment. It 
has been there year in and year out.
  I would note, parenthetically, that I authored the ban on funding for 
abortions in the Federal Employees Health Benefit program. We mirrored 
the language of the Hyde amendment so that today every single insurance 
plan in the FEHB does not include abortion, except in cases of rape, 
incest, or life of the mother, just like the Hyde amendment.
  Let me also say to my colleagues that we need transparency. There is 
a galling lack of transparency in ObamaCare on a myriad of fronts, 
including whether or not a plan includes abortion.
  In my own State of New Jersey, we tried and tried and took hours upon 
hours and finally found out that of the 31 plans offered in the State, 
14 plans subsidized abortion on demand. Yet none of the plans--not 
one--makes this information available to the consumers shopping online.
  Ditto for State after State. You can't find out. When you make those 
phone calls, you get conflicting feedback from the person on the other 
side, who himself or herself doesn't know either. Every single 
ObamaCare plan in Connecticut and Rhode Island includes abortion on 
demand. Every single one. You may be happy with that, but we see that 
as the taking of human life.
  I remind my colleagues, look at what abortion does to the unborn 
child. The baby is either dismembered, chemically poisoned, or 
decapitated. The methods are horrific, and we live in a culture of 
denial that does not want to look at the method.
  It also is highly injurious of women, especially on the intermediate 
and long-term basis, as relates to psychological health.
  Let me also say to my colleagues as well: Do you want to know what 
ObamaCare is doing? Just look at our own plan. Look at the DC Health 
Link, our own portable health insurance. Of the 112 plans that you and 
I and our staff can obtain, 103 of those plans are

[[Page H1454]]

subsidized by Federal dollars, completely in violation of the Hyde 
amendment--and my amendment, frankly. Only nine plans are pro-life. And 
103 of those plans that you and I can buy pay for abortion on demand.
  Just look at the facts.
  The rhetoric that is so attacking of our side on the issue--I believe 
in talking about the issue and not attacking my friends and colleagues, 
and I do count so many as close personal friends, but when it comes to 
this issue, we need to talk about victims. I work with a lot of women. 
I know a lot of women who are post-abortive. They are in need of help 
and reconciliation. Abortion is the abandonment of women and also the 
destruction of a child.
  ObamaCare has not lived up to its promise. H.R. 7 gets it to the 
point where it does so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 7, which effectively bans insurance coverage for family planning 
and allows the government to step between a woman and her doctor even 
when there are risks of serious medical complications.
  Madam Speaker, the women of America are watching. Dictating women's 
personal health care decisions should not be on the table today.
  What should be on the table?
  How about the many policies that ensure the economic success of 
women, such as pay equity, paid sick leave, and raising the minimum 
wage? How about making sure that millions of American job seekers have 
the vital safety net that unemployment insurance provides and allows 
them to put food on the table? How about instead of dictating women's 
health care decisions, we focus on making child care and education more 
accessible and affordable?
  This bill does not move us forward. It moves us backward and inserts 
the government into the most personal decisions a woman and a family 
can make.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was not 
able to testify before those 12 men.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak, particularly since I was denied the courtesy of 
speaking on this bill, which targets my own district.
  Madam Speaker, the only thing worse than targeting the reproductive 
health of the Nation's women is reaching beyond that to do even greater 
damage to the women of a local jurisdiction--to permanently keep the 
District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortion 
services for poor women, as 17 States do. Among them are Alaska, 
Arizona, and Montana, hardly bastions of liberalism.
  Mind you, such spending is already barred in the annual D.C. 
appropriations bill. Yet H.R. 7 strips--imagine this--strips the 
District of Columbia of its very identity for purposes of abortion by 
deeming the District of Columbia government to be part of the Federal 
Government. What an indignity.
  Republicans captured the majority in the name of local control and 
devolving Federal power to the States and localities. Today, you turn 
your own principles on their heads to snatch power from a local 
jurisdiction. We will insist that Republicans practice what they 
preach.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
offensive and overreaching legislation. It endangers women's health and 
well-being and attempts to effectively ban working women's access to a 
legal medical procedure.
  With a budget passed, and the President delivering the State of the 
Union tonight, this body has an important opportunity to turn the page 
and start acting in a bipartisan manner to address the Nation's real 
problem.
  We should be working together to create jobs, encourage economic 
growth, and ensure steady and rising wages. Instead, this House 
majority has once again succumbed to their worst ideological impulses 
at the expense of women's health. Once again, for almost the 50th time 
now, they are trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  The bill claims to end taxpayer funding for abortion. Everyone in 
this room knows there is no taxpayer funding for abortion, per the Hyde 
amendment which is enacted every year.
  What this bill does is prevents millions of women working for small 
businesses from using their own private funds to purchase coverage for 
services from private insurance. It aims to end any private coverage of 
these services by private insurance companies. Women cannot get the 
comprehensive coverage that they need in the insurance marketplace.
  The same old, same old from this House Republican majority. Oppose 
this ideological legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the 
majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the 
grisly business of abortion. This bill, which is cosponsored by 165 
House Members and a quarter of the Senate, will make existing policies 
like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive 
expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.
  The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would 
``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion 
policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance 
exchanges.'' That promise didn't pan out, like so many other promises 
he made. It now joins, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it'' in 
President Obama's panoply of broken promises.
  Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of thousands of Americans came to 
Washington, D.C., braved the cold, and marched for life. Participants 
hailed from all 50 States, various religions, and all different walks 
of life. The one thing they had in common was a shared dedication to 
protecting the unborn.
  The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a 
powerful message to Representatives of the people assembled here in 
Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different 
backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life.
  This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 
reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should 
not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical 
idea, Madam Speaker. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a 
longstanding practice. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote 
for this rule and H.R. 7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I 
commend her for her longstanding and strong support and respect for 
women, for their judgment, for the size and timing of their families, 
for when women succeed, America succeeds. And Congresswoman Ranking 
Member Slaughter has been a great proponent of that.
  Today, the President will stand at the rostrum of the House to report 
on the State of the Union. On a day when we should join him in laying 
out a vision of opportunity and optimism for our country, Republicans 
are voting to limit women's health care decisions.
  They are hiding the provisions of this legislation by what they have 
described as longstanding tradition and accepted policy that there will 
be no Federal funding for abortions and, indeed, there isn't. It is 
spelled out every time we have a bill that addresses this in 
appropriation, which they have stated very clearly and they have said 
that, in a bipartisan way, we have supported.
  So why are we wasting time coming to the floor today to take up 
something that, as they have conceded, is the accepted policy of the 
House and of the Congress of the United States?

[[Page H1455]]

  Why?
  We are doing it because they are using it as a front for legislation 
that is very harmful to reproductive health of women, very 
disrespectful of women's judgment and, again, a waste of time on the 
floor of the House, a waste of time when, instead of disrespecting 
women, we should be mindful and address the needs of 1.5 million and a 
growing number of Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance 
through no fault of their own, hardworking Americans who play by the 
rules and work hard.
  The work-hard ethic is alive and well in America; but in this 
economic time, some people have lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own.
  Over time, we have always respected the system that we had, paid 
these benefits--but not now.
  So today, instead of going down this path to nowhere--they know this 
legislation is going nowhere, that is to say, the underlying damage 
that they are doing to women's health in their legislation, it is going 
nowhere.
  Instead, we should defeat this rule, vote against the previous 
question, follow the lead of distinguished Ranking Member Slaughter on 
the committee, our distinguished Ranking Member Van Hollen of the 
Budget Committee, vote this rule down, enable us to bring up a bill 
that will use the savings from the subsidy cuts in the farm bill in 
order to pay for unemployment insurance benefits.
  I, myself, do not think that they should be paid for because it is an 
emergency and, by and large, those emergencies have never had an 
offset.
  But if the Republicans want an offset, here is an offset, one that is 
going to be voted into law tomorrow in the House of Representatives. We 
can use it today to extend these benefits.
  Why don't we use the time that we have to meet the needs of the 
American people, to honor their priorities, to make their future 
better, instead of dragging us into the past?
  So I ask, again, our colleagues to vote against the bill so that we 
can take up a bill in support of extending unemployment insurance for 
1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on 
women's health care rights.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, our leader is right. Our message 
today should be to be able to help the chronically and unemployed 
individuals who have worked and are now in need of an extension of the 
unemployment benefits.
  Instead, today, as we pass H.R. 7, we will be making a blatant attack 
on equal protection of the law, and that disappoints me because I know 
my good friends believe in the Constitution on the other side of the 
aisle. And the Hyde amendment, and I had the privilege of serving with 
Chairman Hyde for a number of years on the Judiciary Committee, clearly 
is the law.
  But what this bill has done is gone even further. It has 
disenfranchised, from their civil liberties, the people of the District 
of Columbia, and completely abolished home rule, to the extent of 
women's health. And if it was a State, the question would be whether or 
not it was appropriate under the 10th Amendment.
  Then it has disincentivized small businesses, for you have 
disqualified them from getting a tax incentive or a tax credit because 
they are not allowed to provide for their employees.
  This bill should be put to the side, and we should pass legislation 
to ensure that the unemployed have unemployment insurance. That is what 
is right about America, and we should do the right thing.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, 
the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the 
underlying bill.
   I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of 
women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed 
right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems 
facing the American people.
  Instead of resuming their War on Women, our colleagues across the 
aisle should be working with Democrats to extend unemployment insurance 
to the 1.9 million Americans whose benefits have been terminated and to 
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard 
and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.
  A far better use of our time would be to provide help to long-term 
unemployed jobhunters by bringing to the floor and passing H.R. 3888, 
the ``New Chance for a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced 
that would provide compensated skills training for the jobs of tomorrow 
to the long-term unemployed.
  Last year I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation when 
it was brought to the floor. I opposed this bill when it was considered 
in the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I opposed this bill 
yesterday when it was being considered by the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, the version of H.R. 7 before us is only a little less 
bad than the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  Dropped are the tax provisions that would prevent an individual from 
deducting any abortion expenses as a tax-eligible medical expense or 
using pre-tax flex health or health savings accounts for abortion 
expenses.
  But the other draconian provisions of this terrible bill remain 
intact:
  1. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits 
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent 
existing federal policies.)
  2. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service 
furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or 
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government 
or the District.
  3. Applies such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.
  4. Prohibits individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax 
credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified 
health plan that includes coverage for abortions.
  5. Prohibits small employers from receiving the small-employer health 
insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or 
benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.
  Taken together, these provisions have the effect, and possibly the 
intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and 
poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women 
and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability.
  This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a 
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move 
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to 
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 
22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, 
Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% 
chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.
  H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered 
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from 
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of 
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and 
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an 
abortion.
  Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right 
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are 
decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation 
with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life 
of the mother.
  H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, 
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back 
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a State could prohibit a woman 
from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect 
her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a 
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of 
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the 
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 
(1979).
  The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right 
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even 
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. 
The bill before us

[[Page H1456]]

threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition today 
to the rule. I offered an amendment to H.R. 7 which was not made in 
order by the Rules Committee. In fact, not a single amendment was made 
in order.
  The majority continues to tell us about their commitment to open 
debate and regular order. Yet we continue to govern under closed rule.
  I am disappointed by the majority's broken promises. I am also 
opposed to the underlying bill, which is an attack on women and an 
attack on their families. It limits a woman's constitutionally 
protected right to choose.
  It denies affordable health care, particularly to low-income women. 
It disproportionately hurts individuals who are counting on Federal 
assistance to get health care coverage for themselves and their 
families.
  Instead of bringing up bills that undermine a woman's constitutional 
rights, why can't we just focus on legislation that creates jobs and 
helps struggling families?
  Madam Speaker, today, let us just put an end to these attacks on 
women's rights. Indeed, we can do this.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
  Now, instead of taking up critical issues, we are here today 
considering a radical bill that failed several years ago. It has been 
resurrected by the majority so that they can continue their war on 
women and their vendetta against the Affordable Care Act.
  It is a deceptively named bill. It is not about unauthorized use of 
taxpayer dollars. The purpose of this legislation is to make the 
Federal Government interfere with a woman's decision to use her private 
dollars for legal health services.

                              {time}  1415

  It will restrict women's access to safe reproductive health; and 
because it would rule out standard insurance policies now available to 
women, it will leave even more women without health care coverage.
  So instead of taking up an ideological, mean-spirited lost cause, 
let's turn our attention to helping women get comprehensive health 
care, excellent health care for themselves and their families. Let's 
help women get excellent affordable child care, help women get pay 
equity and fairness. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, from renewing unemployment insurance 
for more than 1.6 million Americans to growing our economy and 
rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for Congress to 
pass legislation that will help the American people. So I urge my 
colleagues to reject today's rule so that we can finally get to work, I 
hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our Nation, not 
wasting more time with another attack on women's constitutionally 
protected reproductive rights.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on the bill written by 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) to extend emergency unemployment benefits, paid 
for with the savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will 
pass today or tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, the only thing I really need to say, 
other than the absolute requirements here, is that we have had a great 
demonstration in this rule debate on what is going on here.
  H.R. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee of 12 men and 
then voted on by the main committee, composed mostly of men, who 
carried the debate, was brought here today; and yet, with the exception 
of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came 
to speak on this bill.
  On our side, we had diversity. We had women. We had men getting up 
and talking about actually complying with the Constitution. And on the 
other side, we had, once again, men telling women what they are allowed 
to do.
  We are so far past that. When we finally got the right to vote, we 
said, Let's put all this behind us, certainly in the House of 
Representatives, the people's House. Can't you understand the 
difference here in the people's House, that the people represent the 
diversity of the faces of America, and all the men over there who seem 
to have devoted their lives to making sure that women do what they 
expect them to do and what they are told to do and trying to pass laws 
to require that. I think it was one of the most telling debates that I 
have ever seen, and I hope that it will not go unnoticed by the 
American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to say it again, this bill is not an attack on women or an 
attack on women's rights.
  I think it is wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking 
on behalf of the unborn. Life is the most fundamental of all rights, 
Madam Speaker. It is sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have 
been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. 
This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, 
stand for.
  Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the 
pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. And 
yet, for millions of aborted infants, many pain-capable and many 
discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly 
what they have been denied. And an affront to life for some is an 
affront to life for every one of us. That is the message we want to get 
across today.
  One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be 
valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, 
ushered in by an unelected Court, would be closed and collectively 
deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that 
day, it remains a solemn duty for all of us to stand up for life.
  Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak 
for those who cannot. And we will continue to pray to the One who can 
change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who 
equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.
  Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an 
important longstanding bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn 
and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of 
elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is 
the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral 
consensus in Congress. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 465 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of the conference report 
     to accompany the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform 
     and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the 
     Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for 
     other purposes the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 
     rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration 
     of the bill (H.R. 3936), the Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation Extension Act of 2014. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the

[[Page H1457]]

     bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 465, if 
ordered, and approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Amodei
     Blumenauer
     Campbell
     Clay
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Pitts
     Rogers (MI)

[[Page H1458]]


     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tipton
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1452

  Messrs. PASCRELL and CASTRO of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 192, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Blumenauer
     Campbell
     Clay
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tipton
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1502

  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.

                          ____________________