Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 16 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1459-H1472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE
ACT OF 2014

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 465, I
call up the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 465, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-33 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 7

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full
Disclosure Act of 2014''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

Sec. 101. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions.
Sec. 102. Amendment to table of chapters.

TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Sec. 201. Clarifying application of prohibition to premium credits and
cost-sharing reductions under ACA.
Sec. 202. Revision of notice requirements regarding disclosure of
extent of health plan coverage of abortion and abortion
premium surcharges.

TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS.

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

``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

``301. Prohibition on funding for abortions.
``302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover
abortion.
``303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees.
``304. Construction relating to separate coverage.
``305. Construction relating to the use of non-Federal funds for health
coverage.
``306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws.
``307. Construction relating to complications arising from abortion.
``308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving
the life of the mother.
``309. Application to District of Columbia.

``Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions

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

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

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

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

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

``Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

``The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303
shall not apply to an abortion--
``(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
``(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as
certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death
unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself.

``Sec. 309. Application to District of Columbia

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

SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CHAPTERS.

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

[[Page H1460]]

``4. Prohibiting taxpayer funded abortions 301''.

TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

SEC. 201. CLARIFYING APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION TO PREMIUM
CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS UNDER ACA.

(a) In General.--
(1) Disallowance of refundable credit and cost-sharing
reductions for coverage under qualified health plan which
provides coverage for abortion.--
(A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 36B(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``or any health
plan that includes coverage for abortions (other than any
abortion or treatment described in section 307 or 308 of
title 1, United States Code)''.
(B) Option to purchase or offer separate coverage or
plan.--Paragraph (3) of section 36B(c) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Separate abortion coverage or plan allowed.--
``(i) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting
any individual from purchasing separate coverage for
abortions described in such subparagraph, or a health plan
that includes such abortions, so long as no credit is allowed
under this section with respect to the premiums for such
coverage or plan.
``(ii) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal health
insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering
separate coverage for abortions described in such
subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
as premiums for such separate coverage or plan are not paid
for with any amount attributable to the credit allowed under
this section (or the amount of any advance payment of the
credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act).''.
(2) Disallowance of small employer health insurance expense
credit for plan which includes coverage for abortion.--
Subsection (h) of section 45R of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Any term'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Any term''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Exclusion of health plans including coverage for
abortion.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified health plan' does
not include any health plan that includes coverage for
abortions (other than any abortion or treatment described in
section 307 or 308 of title 1, United States Code).
``(B) Separate abortion coverage or plan allowed.--
``(i) Option to purchase separate coverage or plan.--
Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed as prohibiting
any employer from purchasing for its employees separate
coverage for abortions described in such subparagraph, or a
health plan that includes such abortions, so long as no
credit is allowed under this section with respect to the
employer contributions for such coverage or plan.
``(ii) Option to offer coverage or plan.--Nothing in
subparagraph (A) shall restrict any non-Federal health
insurance issuer offering a health plan from offering
separate coverage for abortions described in such
subparagraph, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
as such separate coverage or plan is not paid for with any
employer contribution eligible for the credit allowed under
this section.''.
(3) Conforming aca amendments.--Section 1303(b) of Public
Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18023(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) by striking paragraph (3), as amended by section
202(a); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
(b) Application to Multi-State Plans.--Paragraph (6) of
section 1334(a) of Public Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18054(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) Coverage consistent with federal abortion policy.--In
entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director
shall ensure that no multi-State qualified health plan
offered in an Exchange provides health benefits coverage for
which the expenditure of Federal funds is prohibited under
chapter 4 of title 1, United States Code.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2014,
but only with respect to plan years beginning after such
date, and the amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to
plan years beginning after such date.

SEC. 202. REVISION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
DISCLOSURE OF EXTENT OF HEALTH PLAN COVERAGE OF
ABORTION AND ABORTION PREMIUM SURCHARGES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 1303(b) of Public
Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18023(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Rules relating to notice.--
``(A) In general.--The extent of coverage (if any) of
services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) or (1)(B)(ii) by a
qualified health plan shall be disclosed to enrollees at the
time of enrollment in the plan and shall be prominently
displayed in any marketing or advertising materials,
comparison tools, or summary of benefits and coverage
explanation made available with respect to such plan by the
issuer of the plan, by an Exchange, or by the Secretary,
including information made available through an Internet
portal or Exchange under sections 1311(c)(5) and
1311(d)(4)(C).
``(B) Separate disclosure of abortion surcharges.--In the
case of a qualified health plan that includes the services
described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) and where the premium for
the plan is disclosed, including in any marketing or
advertising materials or any other information referred to in
subparagraph (A), the surcharge described in paragraph
(2)(B)(i)(II) that is attributable to such services shall
also be disclosed and identified separately.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to materials, tools, or other information made
available more than 30 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable 1 hour equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Ways and Means, and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

General Leave

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 7.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I come in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
This legislation is written with the same simple principle that has
been supported on a bipartisan basis for decades. No taxpayer dollars
should be spent on abortions and abortion coverage. H.R. 7 establishes
a permanent Governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for
abortion.
This bill is all the more necessary because of the President's health
care law and its attack on this long-standing protection of taxpayer
dollars. For example, the health care law's premium subsidies can be
used to purchase coverage on exchanges that include coverage of
abortion.
The ACA breaks with the tradition of the Hyde Amendment, which has
ensured that Federal dollars do not subsidize plans that cover
abortion.

{time} 1515

The bill before us would simply codify the Hyde amendment language so
it applies across the Federal Government.
Consumers should also have the right to know whether the plans they
are selecting on an exchange include abortion coverage. While the ACA
included some notification provisions, many of our constituents are
simply unable to find out whether a plan is paying for abortions. In
fact, this inability to find out whether exchange plans provide
abortion coverage seems to extend to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
In October of last year, Secretary Sebelius committed in testimony
before the Energy and Commerce Committee to provide the Congress and
the American people a full list of exchange plans providing abortion
coverage. She was asked again to provide this list in December. Yet we
are still waiting as the days tick by. We do not have this list.
The self-appointed most transparent administration in history is
simply either unwilling or unable to comply with this request. This is
why we have added provisions of the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure
Act. This would ensure Americans have the right to know whether plans
on the exchange are providing abortion coverage. This bill is about
protecting taxpayer dollars and protecting life. It also ensures we
have at least some transparency under the President's health care law.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 7.
H.R. 7 is not based on fact. The Affordable Care Act does not
secretly funnel taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, and it is not based
on the real

[[Page H1461]]

experiences of American women and families. They want to make their own
personal health care decisions in consultation with their doctors and
their spiritual advisors, not with their Congressmen.
Instead, this bill would squarely put the government, namely the IRS,
in the exam room by effectively raising the taxes of those who choose
an insurance plan that happens to cover abortion services. That
includes hardworking men, women, and families who would be penalized,
and it would burden small businesses, making each one second-guess its
current insurance plan. It would make them change their coverage if
they want to keep their health insurance coverage affordable. Simply
put, H.R. 7 would dictate what individuals can do with their own
private dollars.
Instead of this cynical attack on women's personal decisionmaking, we
should be empowering our Nation's families by focusing on the economy,
by strengthening the middle class, and by helping parents provide the
best for their kids. It is really time to stop reverting back to the
culture wars and to start trusting our Nation's women, our Nation's
families and small businesses to make their own personal health care
decisions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, we were told over and over again: if
you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. We all found out
that that wasn't true. I will never forget on the day that ObamaCare
passed--I was here in this Chamber--we were promised by the President
of the United States that, not only would the taxpayers of this country
not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, but that abortion
would not be a part of ObamaCare. We know today that isn't true.
Abortion is a part of ObamaCare.
What is worse is that no matter how anyone feels about that issue
there is pretty strong agreement that no one should be forced to
violate one's conscience and pay for other people's abortions and be
forced to do that, but that is the way it is. H.R. 7 makes President
Obama's promise stand up and ring true, and it is this: that no
taxpayer-funded money ever goes to pay for someone else's abortion.
Couldn't we unite on this principle? This is important.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, existing law very clearly states no taxpayers' money
can fund abortions--that is already the law--with the exception of
rape, incest, or to save a woman's life. The Republicans are coming in
and saying we have got to make sure that no taxpayer's money is going
to be used to pay for any insurance that might provide abortions.
The law--the Affordable Care Act--provides that, if you get an
insurance policy on the exchange, you can choose a policy that does not
provide abortion coverage, but if you choose a policy that has abortion
coverage, that portion of the policy must be paid by the purchaser, not
the government.
So this is, in fact, like all we do around here, which is propaganda.
It is politics. The Republicans try to make people believe that
taxpayers' dollars are being used to pay for abortions. It is not true.
This bill is bad in substance. It is an unfortunate bill that tries to
interfere with the ability of people to buy with their own money a
policy that may cover abortion services, which is a legal medical
service.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who is a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my distinguished colleague.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am here
today for those who cannot speak for themselves.
The premise of this legislation is nothing new. It simply continues
the longstanding prohibition of using taxpayer dollars to pay for
abortions. Regardless of whether you are pro-life or not, most
Americans recognize that it is unfair to force every American in this
country to subsidize abortion. This is, however, exactly what ObamaCare
does. It has allowed taxpayer subsidies for health care plans that
cover elective abortions. H.R. 7 is as much about protecting the
taxpayer as it is about protecting the unborn.
I urge my colleagues to make the fair choice and to vote ``yes'' on
this bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the ranking
member of the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7.
This legislation does nothing but impede women's access to health care
in this country and turns the clock back on reproductive rights by 38
years.
The bill's sponsors claim it will prevent taxpayer dollars from
paying for abortions. However, we already know that Federal funds do
not go to abortions except in the limited cases of rape, incest, or to
save the mother's life. This bill does not simply codify the Hyde
amendment. That is bogus. What this bill does is prohibit millions of
American families from using their own money to buy health plans that
include abortion coverage.

Madam Speaker, spending time attacking women's health shows just how
far out of touch Republicans in Washington are. Instead of focusing on
the economy and job creation, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would rather focus on legislation that puts access to
reproductive health care in danger and undermines a woman's right to
choose.
On December 28, unemployment insurance expired for Americans still
struggling to find work. Meanwhile, Democrats have a bill that would
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, generating economic activity,
creating jobs, and growing the middle class. These should be the
priorities of the House of Representatives, not this phony bill before
us. This legislation is an unprecedented, radical assault on women's
health care. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who has been such an advocate on our life
issues.
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard
work on this very important issue.
Madam Speaker, I am humbled to join my pro-life colleagues here on
the House floor and, more importantly, the millions of pro-life
Americans across the country.
Although this debate is often clouded by empty euphemisms like
``choice,'' we cannot forget the human element at the heart of this
issue. This isn't about abstract concepts. This is about babies, the
most vulnerable members of our society. At the same time, we must show
compassion and offer help to those struggling through what seems like
an impossible circumstance; and, as civilized people, we ought to
prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing the senseless destruction of
innocent lives once and for all. After all, we are a Nation founded to
protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, we have an
opportunity to do exactly that with commonsense legislation. Millions
of pro-life Americans don't want their tax dollars used to subsidize
abortions.
I urge my colleagues to support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Act.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a real champion
for women's issues.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, this so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act'' has got to be the most deceptively named bill of this
Congress.
Here are the facts:
There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act
does not change that. Let me say that again. There is no taxpayer
funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act does not change that.
The ACA contains a hard-fought compromise that guarantees that the
tax credits made available through the exchanges are segregated out for
plans that cover certain women's health benefits. This bill is an
attempt to undo

[[Page H1462]]

that compromise. It effectively bans the coverage of important women's
health services in the new health insurance exchanges. It restricts the
way that women can use their own private dollars to purchase private
insurance. It says small businesses cannot get tax credits if they
choose to use their private dollars to purchase private insurance that
covers important women's benefits.
It goes far, far beyond the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer
funding for most abortions in the annual appropriations bills. It also,
for the first time, puts the Hyde amendment into law, and it says women
in the District of Columbia will not have the same right to access
health services as women in other States throughout this country.
This bill would not only restrict comprehensive health care for
women; it would also undermine a woman's right to make her own health
care decisions under her insurance policy with her own money. Vote
``no.''
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for her leadership
on this particular issue.
For far too long, Madam Speaker, I was silent on this particular
issue. Some 22 years ago, as we were expecting our first child--my wife
was pregnant--I began to talk to her about this particular thing. There
my son was kicking in his mother's womb, and as we started to see this,
I realized very profoundly that not only was it life but that it
responded. My son was responding to my voice and to my touch, and as we
saw that, I realized that I had been silent for far too long.
Regardless of where you are on this particular issue, we must say
something today--the many of us who find this just appalling that it is
even legal today--in allowing taxpayer dollars to be spent. This is
something on which we must stand together. So, for those who can't
speak for themselves, I stand here today, and I urge my colleagues to
support this particular legislation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

{time} 1530

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle seem to be absolutely obsessed with taking away a woman's right
to make her own personal health decisions with her own money.
Today, we could be extending unemployment benefits to 1.6 million
Americans. Instead, we are considering legislation that would
discriminate against a woman's right with her own money to pick an
insurance policy. We could be raising the minimum wage instead of
effectively banning abortion coverage in the ACA market, even though
not a penny of Federal dollars will go to do that. We could be passing
the Healthy Families Act to provide paid sick leave, instead of
erecting more barriers to women's ability to protect their health, and
yes, including access to safe and legal abortions.
We should be defeating this legislation for three reasons:
First, because women and their doctors--not politicians--should make
their health care decisions;
Secondly, because we should not be undermining access to
comprehensive insurance coverage of women's health insurance paid by
the insured woman, not the government;
Third, because we have more pressing priorities to address.
It is time that we moved on to things that matter to the American
people and not continue this relentless war on women's rights.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to realize
over 60 percent of the American people agree with us on this issue. You
can look at survey after survey. They do not want taxpayers funds used
for abortion.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), joining
us in this fight to make certain that we preserve taxpayer funds, a
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for
her leadership on this.
I have been intrigued at the latest rhetoric on the so-called ``war
on women.'' I am intrigued because at some point pro-abortion activists
stopped using the word ``abortion.'' Instead of using the ``A'' word,
they use terms like ``women's health'' or ``reproductive rights.'' It
is a clever word game designed to disguise the truth and build
artificial support. After all, who would be against the health of
women? Who would oppose anyone's right to reproduce? But what about the
baby's health? What about the unborn child's ``right'' to life?
They don't call it abortion anymore because people understand what
abortion is. It is the taking of a life. It is death where life once
existed. It is cruel and tragic, and there is no place in the Federal
budget for funding it.
Mrs. CAPPS. I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague
from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, here at the start of the new year, when Americans are
facing so many challenges in their lives, the Republicans are taking us
off on this cruel tangent. We should be debating how to boost wages
across this country, how to better educate our children, and how to
ensure that everyone has a chance and an opportunity to be successful
in their lives and secure in their futures, but yet again, a handful of
mostly older, mostly male politicians here in Washington, D.C., believe
that the priority for us is to interfere in the personal lives of
women. They want to intrude in the personal, private health care
decisions of women and their families. They think they know best. But
how can they?
I trust women and their families to make their own decisions, not the
politicians here in Washington, D.C. Republicans in Congress should
respect our right to privacy. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to
direct treatments and oversee diagnoses from Washington, and they
shouldn't unnecessarily restrict a woman's health insurance coverage
and the comprehensive policy that she has paid for.
This Republican bill is an unprecedented, radical assault on a
woman's right to make her own health and health insurance decisions. It
interferes with the relationship between a patient and doctor.
Thankfully, this bill is not going anywhere after the vote today, but
it does provide evidence of what Republicans in the House believe is
the top priority for America.
Is it jobs? No. Is it boosting wages? No. Is it improving our schools
and higher ed? No.
The Republicans' top priority today is to interfere in the personal
lives and health decisions of women across our country.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. May I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee has 2 minutes remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is not about taxpayer funding. It
is about what women, families, and small businesses can do with their
own money, their own private dollars, and it is about keeping Congress
and the IRS out of the doctor's office.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to start trusting America's women
to make their own decisions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
What an interesting debate we have and what a difference we have in
philosophies as we approach the work of this Nation.
I have found it quite curious, as we have some who say we should be
talking about how we live better lives and jobs and futures. You know
what, Madam Speaker? As we talk today, what our focus is on is making
certain that these precious unborn children do have that right to life,
to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness. Yes, indeed.
Today, let me just clear up the record for the legislation before us
where we talk about no taxpayer funding of abortion. I want to read
from the legislation itself, Madam Speaker.
Section 304 in title I:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting
any individual, entity, or

[[Page H1463]]

State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage
or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as
such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not
authorized or appropriated by Federal law.

Reading directly from the bill and then going to section 306:

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

So, Madam Speaker, may I lay the fears aside of my colleagues. This
is an issue that 60 percent of the American people agree with us on. It
is an action that they think is important to take; that it is important
for taxpayers to have the assurance from their government that we are
not going to have taxpayer funds used for abortion.

I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand before the House
today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I
supported this legislation last Congress because the message I have
consistently received from my constituents is that they do not want
their taxpayers dollars funding abortions. Period.
It is time to put this issue to rest once and for all. The majority
of Americans, regardless of where they stand on the larger issue, do
not want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, but for too long,
we have had a patchwork of provisions when it comes to Federal funding,
which has created potential loopholes and confusion. H.R. 7 solidifies
the longstanding provisions of the Hyde amendment, which are especially
needed when it comes to the Affordable Health Care Act.
Madam Speaker, I don't have time to stand here and list all of the
problems with the President's health care law, but one of these
problems can be fixed through the passage of this bipartisan bill,
which simply states that taxpayer dollars will not pay for abortions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
When I go home to talk to my constituents back home in Queens and the
portions of the Bronx that I represent, there are a lot of issues that
they bring up to me. They want to see unemployment insurance restored.
They want to see jobs created. They want to see our economy
strengthened. They want to see investments in infrastructure and
building our communities.
But not once has anyone ever said, Forget all about that. They have
never said to me, Please raise my taxes if Uncle Sam objects to the
health care plan I have picked for me, my family, or my business.
Yes, that's exactly what this bill does. It raises taxes on
individuals, families, and small businesses.
I offered an amendment that would block this bill from taking effect
if it would raise taxes, but the Republican majority, with yet another
closed rule, refused to make that amendment in order. Why?
Because they knew that if that amendment were to become a part of
this bill, it would kill this bill. Because no matter how you slice it,
this Republican bill will raise taxes on hardworking Americans. Small
businesses will pay more taxes because if their employee health plan
covers abortion or reproductive care, the business will be denied the
small business tax credit. No one denies that.
Families will pay more in taxes when they lose any tax credits they
received to purchase a health insurance plan if the plan that works
best for them happens to include abortion coverage. That is right.
Families will have to give up on choosing their own plan.
Stripping these health care tax credits will have the same effect as
if we denied or stripped out similar tax credits like the child tax
credit or the higher education tax credit.
If this isn't a tax increase, I don't know what is.
This bill interferes with personal choice and decisions.
I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues claim to support
ensuring Americans can pick a private health plan that suits their
individual needs until the plan they pick covers legal services they
find personally objectionable. I find it ironic that my Republican
colleagues oppose every suggested tax increase out there until it is
one that abnegates their social agenda.
There is no question this is a serious issue and it deserves serious
consideration. Yet on an issue as important as access to comprehensive
health care coverage--and with such severe tax implications--it is
outrageous that this bill was not first considered by the Ways and
Means Committee. The reason for that is Republicans are rushing this
new bill forward. Not because they are looking to make good policy, but
because they are looking to make good political friends--good political
friends who support a very narrow political agenda.
I just wish the real issues that we need to be working on like
extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans would get as
much attention as all these made-up issues.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1545

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume simply to note that, according to the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, the bill would have negligible effects on tax
revenues.
Similarly, the CBO estimates that any effects on direct spending
would be negligible for each year and over the 10-year budget window.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), the author of the bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for
her leadership and her very eloquent remarks.
My friend from New York talked about a narrow agenda and a narrow
perspective. More than 60 percent of every poll, in the case of one
poll, 69 percent of all women in the United States of America say they
do not want their funds being used to subsidize abortion on demand.
Let me remind my colleagues that this legislation accomplishes three
goals:
One, it makes the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding
prohibitions permanent. We just reauthorized all of those riders just a
few weeks ago. This just makes them permanent;
Ensures that the Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms to the Hyde
amendment, as promised by the President of the United States;
And provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display
that is absolutely lacking right now of the extent to which any health
insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion.
Madam Speaker, the President of the United States stood about 10 feet
from where I am standing right now back in September of 2009 and told a
joint session of Congress:

Under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund
abortion.

The executive order that was issued in March of 2010 said, and I
quote, that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment
restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions
to newly created health insurance exchanges.''
Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. It is absolutely not true. As
my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has two parts. It prohibits
direct funding for abortion, and it bans funding to any insurance
coverage, any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the
cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
Earlier speakers have said not a penny will go to pay for abortion.
Yet under the Affordable Care Act, massive amounts of public funds--
what are they if they are not public? They are public funds coming out
of the U.S. Treasury in the forms of tax credits. That is the word
used.
$796 billion in direct spending, over 10 years, according to CBO,
will pay for insurance plans, many, perhaps most of which will include
elective abortions, abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, that massively violates the Hyde amendment. You can't
have it both ways. You can't say you

[[Page H1464]]

are for the Hyde amendment and you are comporting with the Hyde
amendment when you violate it in such a way.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that there are many States
where pro-life individuals and constituents will have no opportunity to
buy a plan that is pro-life on the exchanges. That includes Connecticut
and Rhode Island. Every plan is abortion-on-demand, so their premium
dollars, your tax dollars and mine, will be combining to buy plans that
provide for abortion-on-demand.
In 2014, Madam Speaker, we have learned so much about the magnificent
life of an unborn child. Increasingly, we have also learned about the
deleterious effects that abortions have on women, psychologically, the
children born subsequently to them and, of course, to other aspects of
their physical health.
Please support H.R. 7.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time we have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Kansas has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, when you are not limited by the facts,
you can say almost anything out on this floor; and we are hearing that
today because, in the grand tradition of the anti-choice terminology,
the title of this bill is an absolute farce.
Taxpayers do not currently fund abortions, and this legislation would
do nothing more than make it difficult for private businesses to
provide adequate health care for their workers, restrict how our
Nation's Capital conducts its affairs, and generally block poor women
from accessing safe and legal abortions.
In 1963, I was an intern in Buffalo, New York, before the Hyde
amendment, before all the business and abortions were illegal. I stood
there on the general medicine ward with two women, one with eight
children, one with 12 children, who had gotten septic abortions done in
a back alley, and they died.
They left eight and 12 children in that situation. Now, they did that
because they didn't have access to clean abortions. They had made a
choice. They can make a choice.
If we say women can't make a choice, that is very simple. We will
just tell women what to do, which is really what this bill is all
about.
The Republicans want to tell women what to do. Stay out of our lives,
get the government out of our lives. No, in every area except women's
health.
Now, the truth of the matter is not tax credits or health coverage.
The heart of this debate is a simple question about does women's health
count?
Do women deserve comprehensive health care?
Or are they some kind of submissive person who hangs around the house
and we tell them what to do?
Are their health care needs real?
And does 51 percent of our population deserve control over their own
health decisions?
Or are they special exceptions who need to be taken care of because
they can't decide for themselves?
Do they have a right to make health decisions for themselves?

Does Congress have a right to stigmatize a safe, legal procedure?
Imagine if we were standing up here debating whether or not private
business would be allowed to help employees get coverage for prostate
cancer or erectile dysfunction drugs or vasectomies. Suppose we were to
pass a law and say you can't pay for that kind of stuff?
Imagine if we told men that they would lose their deserved tax
credits in the exchange if they purchased insurance that covered their
health needs as they decide them?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CROWLEY. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Women's health care is health care. It is not
Congress' job to stigmatize legal medical procedures and punish women
who use them. It is also not Congress' job to tell Washington, D.C.,
what to do or to stop people from having their options.
This bill is insulting to women, and the Republicans are asking for
it in the next election. If anybody votes for you, it is because they
haven't paid attention to what you are doing out here today. You are
insulting every woman in this country. She can't make her own decision
about her health care.
I urge you to vote ``no.''
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this is appalling that we
are even at this point in talking about this providing health care for
women. I am really shocked. If we are not providing the best possible
medical help for expectant mothers and their unborn child, that is not
the issue.
This country has always been the champion of life around the world,
protecting human rights. We have always showed up at every single
encounter, whenever people were being treated in a way that we thought
was not right.
We worry about Syria and the fact that they are losing their
citizens, that Assad is killing their citizens. Yet, since 1973, we
have aborted 56 million unborn children, 56 million unborn children.
And today we are having a discussion on H.R. 7, where the only thing
the American taxpayers are saying, we know, by law, a woman can make
that choice, but we also know that taxpayers don't want to fund it.
It is appalling that we have to have this type of a discussion in the
United States of America when you know how we feel in our hearts and in
our souls. You know how people feel about this.
I want you to think about those 56 million unborn children who could
have made a huge difference in this world. It is absolutely appalling
to sit in this great room where so many great debates over the
protection of human rights and freedom and liberty have taken placer
and to be having this discussion.
This has nothing to do with us cutting back on women's health care.
It has to do with taxpayers not wanting to fund an abortion. This is
what we are talking about.
Please--and as the gentleman just said--is it about the next
election? Really?
Have we reduced ourselves to only winning elections and not winning
on behalf of people's rights?
These are human rights. I appreciate the time to come to speak.
Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you, this is one of the most
disturbing things that we face in the country today, and I want our
people to think about this: 56 million children have been aborted.
If we can't wake up and smell the roses on this, then shame on us.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, there is no tax money being used for
abortions. That has been true since Henry Hyde served here with us.
What this bill does is not address that issue. It really is intended
to eliminate abortion coverage in private insurance plans.
Our witness, Professor Wood, testified in the Judiciary Committee
that eliminating the tax benefit, essentially raising taxes if a small
business offers a broad insurance plan that includes abortion, will
result in dropping that portion of the coverage. So this is really an
extreme measure.
I understand that not everyone believes that women should make this
choice. If you are opposed to abortion, don't have an abortion. But
don't put the Federal Government in charge of the decisions that are
properly and legally made by women, along with their husbands and
families.
This is an extreme agenda. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, throughout history, there has
often been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting the
innocent lives of those who, through no fault of their own, find
themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity.
It encourages me greatly that in nearly all of those cases the
collective

[[Page H1465]]

conscience was finally moved in favor of the victims. The same thing is
beginning to happen in this debate related to innocent, unborn
children.
No matter how the left has tried to obscure the true issue, we are
finally beginning to ask ourselves the real question: Does abortion
take the life of a child?
And we are finally beginning to realize, as a human family, Madam
Speaker, that it does. Ultrasound technology demonstrates to all
reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity
of what is being done to them.
And we are finally beginning to realize, as Americans, that 56
million lost little lives and their blood staining the foundations of
this Nation is enough.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, if the
gentlelady has any additional speakers before she closes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Kansas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I don't see any additional speakers, so
we will be prepared to close.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady from Kansas, my good friend, who I respect greatly,
said the overall tax effect is negligible. I would ask, negligible to
whom?
If you are that person who can't get a needed tax credit, it is not
negligible to you. It is very real.
Part of what is so troubling about this bill is it is not only how
much further it goes than current existing law, but how much further
this kind of thinking could go.
What other restrictions on medical procedures are next, as my friend
from Washington said? If your procedure involves stem cells, prenatal
care for teen mothers?
Could hospitals lose funding for training doctors in necessary
procedures that this majority may deem troubling?
The question is, where does it end?
How many other ways can the majority use our laws to punish
hardworking Americans?

{time} 1600

Can they take away your student loans because your teacher wants you
to read ``Catcher in the Rye''? Can they limit your tax benefits for
buying a house in the wrong neighborhood? The slope is steep and
slippery. Vote ``no'' on this wrongheaded bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, we are not interested in raising taxes.
This bill does not do that. We are simply ensuring that hardworking
Americans who pay taxes and oppose abortion don't see their taxpayer
dollars going to fund abortion.
We have had legislation similar to this bill in place for over three
decades. This legislation is not a new idea. The majority of Americans
have long held that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for
abortion practices that they do not believe in.
I would ask everyone to support passage of H.R. 7, Madam Speaker, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
consume.
However stark Americans' differences of opinions can be on the matter
of abortion, generally, there has long been bipartisan agreement that
Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. The
Hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor, former House Judiciary
Chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal funding of abortion
since 1976, when it passed a House and Senate that was composed
overwhelmingly of Democratic Members.
It has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for
over 35 years, supported by Congress' control by both parties and
Presidents from both parties. It is probably the most bipartisan, pro-
life proposal, sustained over a longer period of time than any other.
Just last week, a Marist landline and cell phone poll of over 2,000
adults found that 58 percent of those surveyed oppose or strongly
oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions. It is time the Hyde
amendment was codified in the United States Code.
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Chris
Smith of New Jersey, would do just that. It would codify the two core
principles of the Hyde amendment throughout the operations of the
Federal Government, namely, a ban on Federal funding for abortions and
a ban on use of Federal funds for health benefits coverage that
includes coverage of abortion.
During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, probably
millions and millions of innocent children and their mothers have been
spared the horrors of abortion. The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that the Hyde amendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer
abortions each year. Let that sink in for a few precious moments.
The policy we will be discussing today has likely given America the
gift of millions more children and, consequently, millions more mothers
and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes and trillions more
loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms. What
a stunningly wondrous legacy.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Ladies and gentlemen, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of Federal
funds. Through the Hyde amendment, Congress already prevents funding of
abortion and has done so for more than 30 years. Nothing in the
Affordable Care Act changes this fact.
H.R. 7 is not needed to prevent the Federal funding of abortion, nor
does it merely codify existing law as has been falsely asserted by
those proponents. As a matter of fact, the bill on the floor today
contains numerous new provisions adopted after the Judiciary Committee
marked up and reported the bill.
This version of the bill has never been examined, debated, or amended
by any committee of the House, yet my colleagues in the majority refuse
to allow their colleagues any opportunity to amend this harmful bill
today. This bill is far too significant and its impact on women is far
too harmful to foreclose meaningful debate on an amendment as my
colleagues in the majority have done.
This measure represents yet another assault on women's health care
and constitutionally protected rights and should be rejected.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called ``No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
This bill is just another ill-conceived attempt to push a divisive
social agenda instead of focusing on what Americans care most about:
creating jobs and improving our Nation's economy.
Plain and simple, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of federal
funds, but yet again another attack on women's health and their
constitutionally-protected rights.
Sponsors of H.R. 7 want you to believe that the bill merely codifies
existing law, but this is false.
For more than 30 years, the current law has prohibited federal
funding for abortion. There is absolutely no risk that the public fisc
will be raided to pay for abortion services, even under the Affordable
Care Act.
The goal of H.R. 7 is to nullify the decisions of women and small
business employers who choose insurance coverage that includes abortion
coverage paid for with purely private, non-federal funds.
Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically
from existing law, taking away women's existing health care and placing
their health and lives at risk.
H.R. 7 eradicates the authority of the District of Columbia to make
decisions about how locally raised funds are used for the healthcare of
women.
When Delegate Holmes-Norton sought to address the Judiciary Committee
about the bill's overreach, her request was denied by the Majority in
utter disrespect for her and the District.
Women deserve a meaningful examination of their constitutionally-
protected private health care decisions, not the frivolous and reckless
process the Majority has undertaken on this bill before us today.
This bill was rushed through the Judiciary Committee, and was
discharged from two other committees of jurisdiction--leaving no
opportunity for their Members to seriously consider this legislation.

[[Page H1466]]

What the Majority has brought to the floor today contains numerous
new provisions, has never been examined, debated, or amended by any
Committee of the House.
The fact that the Minority is foreclosed from offering any amendments
today is yet further proof that this legislation is simply intended to
be yet another polemic attack on women, against our deliberative
legislative process, and an attack against the citizens of the District
of Columbia.
Why are these latest changes being demanded? Who is pushing this
drastic course?
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank Congressman Chris Smith for his leadership in protecting the
rights of the unborn.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of life. I believe in the
sanctity of life, that life begins at conception, and that life is
truly our greatest gift. I also recognize that abortion can be a very
divisive issue. However, there is an area where most Americans agree
and where elected officials can come together, and that is on the
Federal funding of abortion.
Recent polling and information confirms what we have always known,
that the majority of Americans do not want their hard-earned tax
dollars going to pay for abortions. And Congress has consistently
worked together over the years by attaching the Hyde amendment to
appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer funds from going towards
abortions.
Today the House will vote on a bill that I am proud to cosponsor and
support, H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill
does exactly what the name implies: it permanently ensures that no
taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions or abortion coverage. This
bill codifies the Hyde amendment as well as addresses taxpayer funding
that, unfortunately, the Hyde amendment does not cover.
For example, ObamaCare expressly allows funding for plans that
include abortions through taxpayer subsidies. During the health care
debate, the President assured the American people that no Federal
dollars would be used to fund abortions under ObamaCare. Yet this was
just one more in a long line of inaccurate statements on ObamaCare by
the President and his administration.
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act not only prevents taxpayer
funding for abortion under ObamaCare, but it also requires transparency
to ensure consumers are fully informed about which plans on the
exchanges contain abortion coverage and surcharges.
Madam Speaker, throughout my life, I have worked hard to draw
attention to the pro-life movement. I do it with love and compassion. I
live for the day when abortion is not just illegal, but it is
unthinkable.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 7, the misleadingly
named No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill. Congress, unfortunately,
already prohibits Federal funding of abortion. This bill does not
simply codify existing law. Rather, it modifies and extends current
funding restrictions in the Hyde amendment and, for the first time
ever, uses the Tax Code to penalize the use of private funds to
purchase insurance that covers abortion. It denies small businesses the
tax credits they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they
offer their employees health insurance, if that health insurance covers
abortion. It similarly denies income-eligible women and families the
tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if
they use their own money to purchase insurance, if that insurance
covers abortion.
The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a
completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this
context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is
Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches, synagogues, and
religious-affiliated schools not be considered Federal funding in
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? We should
all be very careful about establishing this new principle.
H.R. 7 is not a codification of existing law, nor is it just another
attempt to enact the approach taken in the Stupak-Pitts amendment to
the House-passed Affordable Care Act. H.R. 7 is a radical departure
from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage;
and it is not justifiable, nor is it necessary, unfortunately, to
prevent Federal funding of abortion.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Today the House will consider H.R. 7--a bill that embraces the
completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent
federal funding of abortion services.
Congress already prohibits federal funding of abortion and has done
so for more than thirty years. Many of us disagree with that decision.
But regardless, there is no need for this bill, at least not to prevent
federal funding of abortion.
Nor is the bill simply an effort to codify existing law. H.R. 7
modifies and extends current funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment
that are limited in time and scope, without any effort to determine how
such a sweeping and permanent expansion would impact American women and
their families.
If this were all, that would be reason enough to oppose it, but H.R.
7 actually goes much further. For the first time ever, anti-choice
lawmakers are using the Federal tax code to penalize the purchase of
insurance that covers abortion in certain circumstances. These
penalties would apply when women and businesses use their own money--
let me repeat that, their own money, not Federal funds--to purchase
insurance that covers abortion.
In particular, H.R. 7 penalizes income-eligible women by denying them
the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act
if they use their own money to purchase insurance that covers abortion.
It similarly denies small businesses the tax credits that they are
entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance they offer
their employees includes abortion coverage.
The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a
completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this
context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is
Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches not be considered
Federal funding in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment? I am sure that many churches, synagogues, other houses of
worship, and religiously-affiliated schools would be alarmed to
discover this.
We all should be very careful about establishing this new principle.
Some additional tax penalties were in the bill when it was considered
by the House Judiciary Committee. Those were removed and we now have
new provisions that have never been considered by any Committee.
We have no idea who made these changes or why they were made. But
they demonstrate the fiction and hypocrisy that underlies this bill.
This bill, unlike the version considered in the Judiciary Committee,
no longer denies women who pay for abortion out-of-pocket the ability
to claim those expenses as deductible medical expenses. And this
version no longer taxes women when they use money they have set aside
in flexible savings accounts or health savings accounts for abortion
services. We welcome the removal of those tax penalty provisions, but
these changes are not nearly enough.
This version, unlike the bill considered by House Judiciary, also
adds a notice requirement that requires insurance companies to provide
a false notice to policyholders that they will be forced to pay a so-
called ``abortion surcharge'' if they are in a plan that covers
abortion.
Existing law already requires plans to disclose to consumers whether
a policy includes abortion. No further notice is necessary. And there
is no surcharge for this coverage, as the new notice provision falsely
suggests. The Affordable Care Act requires participating insurance
plans to segregate monies for abortion services from all other funds, a
measure my anti-choice colleagues insisted was necessary to prevent
Federal funding of abortion. The segregation of a private dollar
contribution of at least $1 a month is not a surcharge at all but
merely a segregation of the premium. The new notice provision requires
insurance companies to mislead consumers into mistakenly believing that
they are paying a separate, additional charge for coverage of abortion
and that they would pay a lesser premium for insurance that does not
cover abortion.
The harms caused by this bill are compounded by the fact that we are
being forced to consider it under a closed rule, with no opportunity
for amendment.
The potential impact of this bill on the rights of individuals to
spend their own funds to purchase comprehensive insurance that cover
all of their health care needs (including the potential of an unplanned
pregnancy) is significant.

[[Page H1467]]

Members should have been given the chance to consider amendments and
debate the impact of this bill--and, in particular, its untested tax
provisions--before taking an up or down vote on the whole package. This
bill is too important, the impact on the rights of all Americans to
spend their own money in ways see fit too great, simply to close the
door to any debate.
I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership on this, and I thank the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for sponsoring this bill.
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree on
this: it is wrong to spend hard-earned tax dollars to pay for
abortions. Yet that is the policy of this administration through
ObamaCare and what today's bill reverses. This commonsense provision
ensures tax dollars are used wisely and government policy does not
violate Americans' basic rights.
H.R. 7 brings a stop to government-subsidized abortion created
through ObamaCare, creates transparency by ensuring citizens have the
information they need regarding their insurance policy and whether it
pays for abortion or not, and, ultimately, lessens the number of lives
ended through abortion. This legislation is important for the future of
our country and forces our government to no longer be complicit in
taking the lives of millions of innocent babies.
We now live in a country that is trending pro-life, and a CNN poll
shows that 61 percent of respondents oppose public funding for
abortion. Forcing Americans to pay for services that they find morally
unconscionable is wrong.
The pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute demonstrates that when tax
dollars are used, abortions increase by 25 percent. Conversely, by
ensuring tax dollars are not used for abortions, we can not only save
hard-earned tax dollars, but we can save lives, and that is a policy we
can all live with.
I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 7.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished Judiciary
Committee member.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
H.R. 7 is a dangerous bill, and it is an attack on women's health,
particularly women who get subsidies based on their ability to purchase
insurance under ObamaCare. This bill is also emblematic of a Republican
Party that is utterly and completely out of touch with Americans.

{time} 1615

Americans want to grow this economy. They want jobs. The response of
the Republicans, however, is more anti-gay, anti-woman legislation.
They have even referred to this as a job-creating bill. Not one job
will be created by the bill. Why don't we focus on getting Americans
back to work instead of doing everything we can to restrict women's
health care choices? Let's focus on helping the 1.3 million Americans
whose unemployment benefits lapsed a month ago today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and I thank Mr. Smith for bringing this very important legislation
here to the House.
I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act--commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will protect
American taxpayers from footing the bill for this barbaric practice of
abortion, in turn helping to protect women's health and unborn life.
Now, despite the legislation's bipartisan support, we have heard more
than a few mischaracterizations of this bill from our colleagues across
the aisle, and as a woman, I reject these false attacks. This
legislation is not about taking away anyone's choice. It is about
giving choice to the nearly two-thirds of Americans who don't want
their hard-earned tax dollars funding the destruction of innocent life.
Madam Speaker, as a nurse for over 40 years, I have seen countless
births. I have seen the joy in a mother's eyes as she holds her newborn
for the first time, and I have also seen a young woman lose her life to
abortion.
Those experiences informed my belief that all life--born and unborn,
mother and child--is a precious gift, and I hope to see the day that
this truth is reflected in our Nation's laws. Until then, we can, at
least, protect the values and conscience of millions of American
taxpayers by passing this legislation.
I look forward to voting ``yes'' on the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, new year, new Congress, but the same old
political tricks. H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act, will not do anything further to stop tax dollars from
funding abortions because tax dollars are already restricted from
funding abortion and have been ever since the Hyde amendment was
introduced in 1976.
As one of the five female members on the Judiciary Committee, I
strongly oppose this bill that will undermine women from using their
own private funds to buy their own private insurance for health
coverage. This is a ploy to drive out abortion coverage in the private
market. Millions of women who purchase health insurance in the private
market will lose access to comprehensive health insurance.
It is time to end these games once and for all. Decisions about a
woman's reproductive health belong between that woman and the doctor
she trusts, not with politicians who would interfere with a woman's
private decision.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose
this sweeping anti-choice bill which would deny premium tax credits to
income-eligible women and their families if the insurance they obtain
under the Affordable Care Act covers abortion--except in cases of rape,
incest and when a woman's life is in danger.
What experts in the health care industry predict, and as one of the
witnesses at this month's Judiciary hearing testified, is that the
burdensome regulatory requirements contained in this bill would have a
chilling effect and lead to insurers dropping abortion coverage from
their plans.
While this bill provides a narrow exception if a woman's life is in
danger, unfortunately, it would not allow any exceptions to protect a
woman's health, even in circumstances where she needs an abortion to
prevent severe, permanent damage to her health.
Each patient is different, and legislators cannot know the
circumstances of every pregnancy. They should not interfere in
personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a
woman, her family and her doctor. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R.
7.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman who has
served on this committee of opportunity, equality and justice for his
entire career, among other committees, in the United States Congress.
Let me thank the manager and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as
well.
We do not come to the floor in argument about each other's
conscience. We respect the belief of others and the conscience of
others and the integrity of the decision made by those who choose to
stand for their positions. As a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee, I only stand here on the basis

[[Page H1468]]

of equal protection under the law and the applying of the Constitution
to every single person, which includes a woman's access to health care.
What H.R. 7 does beyond the Hyde amendment, which has been law and in
law and adhered to for decades, one, that I would be reminded of the
eloquence of Chairman Hyde, who would be on the floor discussing the
continuation of his position.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is very kind, sir.
If, for example, you have pretax money for health care or a health
savings account, you are taken care of, but if you live in the District
of Columbia and you want to use local funds, you are left along the
highway of unequalness. If you are in the United States military, you
are left along the highway of unequalness. If, for example, you have
been the victim of sexual assault that results in a situation that
requires access to health care, you are left alone. Federal employees,
you are left alone. Poor, you are left alone.
The bill that we have was just submitted to the Rules Committee. It
was not before the House Judiciary Committee. We don't know what is in
it.
So, Madam Speaker, I do not rise against a person's conscience. I
rise and hold the Constitution in my hand, and that is that we have a
right to privacy, and we have a right to use local or your own funds,
and in this bill, all of that has been denied. I ask the question: Can
we pass this legislation and deny Americans equal protection under the
law?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is an
assault on women; and ask that my colleagues also vote against H.R. 7,
The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act.
What we have before us in H.R. 7 is a dangerous and misleading bill
which has one goal--eliminating abortion coverage in all of the
insurance markets. And it is the reincarnation of H.R. 3 which was a
featured bill in the last Congress.
And although some terrible things were in the bill have been
removed--this bill is still an attack on women.
Let me be clear, if H.R. 7 were to become law, all women could either
lose insurance coverage that includes abortion or be stigmatized while
seeking such comprehensive insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee last night
along with ALL of the women on the Judiciary Committee, which was
summarily rejected as were all of the other amendments to this bill.
Our amendment would have corrected a shortcoming in the bill, which
only considers a woman's health when she is faced with death.
I would like to thank all four women on the Judiciary Committee,
Karen Bass, Judy Chu, Susan DelBene, and Zoe Lofgren who cosponsored
this important amendment.
Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long-lasting damage
to their health during pregnancy.
This Congress should not be in business of interfering with a woman's
health nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure a
long-lasting health defect or disease due to a pregnancy.
Without this amendment, this Congress would submit millions of women
to face serious and long- lasting health issues.
Our amendment reflects the 1978 version of the Hyde Amendment by
incorporating an exemption for severe and long-lasting damage to a
woman's health in continuing a pregnancy.
This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists.
Women must receive the best health care and disease prevention and
have access to all medically appropriate legal medical procedures.
And Mr. Speaker it must be stated over and over that this is purely
partisan and divisive legislation which:
1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus
puts their lives at risk;
2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother;
3. Unfairly targets the District of Columbia; and
4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and
protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of
American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in
Roe v. Wade.
One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb
access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.
Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved
viability.
This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to devel beyond the 22-
week point. There was less than a 10 percent chance that, if born,
Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2
percent chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.
H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an
abortion.
Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are
decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation
with their partners, doctors, and their God.
H.R. lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of
the mother.
H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy,
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman
from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect
her health prior to viability.
While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89
(1979).
The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
And again, our amendment would have helped to preserve this hard won
right for women.
Let's not turn back the hands of time Mr. Speaker--vote ``no'' on
H.R. 7.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a distinguished
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, no child is unwanted. Let me repeat that.
No child is unwanted. There are millions of American couples today that
are waiting to give these unborn children a home--a loving home. I
don't know all the circumstances, but I do know that a lot of the
unborn are little girls and little boys. I don't know about my
colleagues, but I believe that God has a plan for each of those unborn
children, and I don't believe that that plan includes terminating their
life.
Now, that may not be a popular thing to say. But can't we focus on
the unborn and the fact that there are millions of families out there,
many of them childless, that would love to have these little girls and
boys in their home?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. 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 introduce
a list of those opposing H.R. 7 into the Record.

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

Advocates for Youth; American Association of University
Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public
Health Association; American Society for Reproductive
Medicine; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum;
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP);
Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice; Center
for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA.
Feminist Majority; Guttmacher Institute; Hadassah, The
Women's Zionist Organization

[[Page H1469]]

of America, Inc; Jewish Women International; Joint Action
Committee for Political Affairs; Methodist Federation for
Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Abortion
Federation; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
(NAPAWF); National Center for Lesbian Rights; National
Council of Jewish Women; National Family Planning and
Reproductive Health Association; National Health Law Program;
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
National Organization for Women; National Partnership for
Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; National
Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Physicians
for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of
America; Population Connection Action Fund; Population
Institute; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We
Need; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Religious Institute; Reproductive Health Technologies
Project; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the
U.S. (SIECUS); South Carolina Small Business Chamber of
Commerce; Third Way; Unitarian Universalist Association;
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of
Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield the remainder
of the time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said today about
taxpayer money being used for abortion. I think it is important to note
that that does not occur in America today. That decision was made a
number of decades ago recognizing that taxpayer funds will not be used.
So what are we doing here? What we are doing is making sure that
abortion can't be offered in the private insurance market. That is what
we are doing here.
It was said earlier that the CBO had indicated there would be a
minimal impact from the tax increase on small businesses if a broad
insurance plan was offered that included abortion. The reason for that
is that it is anticipated that all of those small businesses will avoid
the tax increase and drop the abortion coverage. So that is why there
would not be a large impact, but there will be a large impact on women
because, although there are exceptions for the life of the mother,
there is no exception for the health of the mother, something that is
required by the Constitution and our Supreme Court. In those cases,
this can be a very expensive proposition.
I will just tell you an example of a person whom I know, Vicki, who,
unfortunately, her much-wanted child, all of this child's brains formed
outside of the cranium. There was no question this wanted child was not
going to survive more than a minute or 2. Unfortunately for Vicki,
without an abortion, the expectation was that her uterus would be
destroyed and she would not be able to have other children--not that
she would die, but that she would not be able to have other children
that she and her husband wanted to have.
It is very expensive to get some of these procedures when your health
is at risk. So, yes, we will not have increases on small businesses
because they will drop these coverages, but the women of America are
going to be told by this government, yes, we know better than you do.
We are going to decide for you.
Vote ``no'' on this very wrongheaded bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would say that the evidence is overwhelming that the American
people do not support using taxpayer funds for abortion, and the
evidence is very strong that that should not be allowed under
ObamaCare, either, and it is also very strong that individuals have the
opportunity with their own private funds to purchase a policy that
provides for abortion. It might be a separate policy from the policy
that provides their health insurance. It would be probably not very
expensive. That is their choice. That is their conscience. That is not
what the American people expect to see done with their taxpayer
dollars.
In fact, as one of our committee witnesses pointed out, a majority of
the public opposes government funding for abortion. Women oppose
funding by a few percentage points more than men, and those who are
poor and would presumably be those most likely to seek government
funding for abortion oppose it more than those who are more affluent.
The bill before us today is supported by all segments of American
society, and it should be supported by this House, as well. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's pass it through
the House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the ``No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This legislation codifies the
longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment, which prevents taxpayer funds
from being used for abortion-related costs.
The legislation before us today imposes restrictions with respect to
two ObamaCare-related tax benefits: the Exchange subsidies and the
small business health insurance credit.
These two provisions were included in a broader bill passed in the
112th Congress. The legislation is necessary because the Democrats'
health care law included a massive expansion of the IRS's authority and
funneled taxpayer funds for various costs and procedures, including
abortions.
This legislation will prevent the use of taxpayer funding for
abortions--reflecting the spirit and the intent of the Hyde amendment.
However, I want to be clear about what the legislation would not do.
It would not affect either the ability of an individual to pay for an
abortion (or for abortion coverage) through private funds, or the
ability of an entity to provide separate abortion coverage.
It would not apply to abortions in cases of rape, incest or life-
threatening physical condition of the mother.
It would not apply to treatment of injury, infection or other health
problems resulting from an abortion.
Simply put, this bill is about making sure taxpayer funds are not
used to pay for abortions and does not affect the use of private funds.
As such, this legislation takes the necessary steps to codify the Hyde
amendment in the tax code so that it appropriately reflects changes
that have occurred as a result of ObamaCare.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7,
another thinly veiled attempt to limit American women from being able
to access comprehensive health care.
It may be a new year, but 2014 clearly has not inspired new
beginnings for the Majority leadership in this House of
Representatives. Last year, under Republican leadership, we did not
take up immigration reform, we did not overhaul No Child Left Behind,
and we did not vote on legislation to create jobs, or help those who
have been struggling to find work. In fact, Congress's failure to
extend unemployment benefit left millions of Americans, including
90,000 New Jerseyans, without their benefits.
But instead of taking on these critical issues, we are here today
considering a radical bill that failed in 2011, but has been
resurrected by the Majority so they continue to pursue their war on
women and their vendetta against the Affordable Care Act.
This deceptively named ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act'' is not about unauthorized use
of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of this legislation is to permit the
federal government to interfere with a woman's decision to use private
dollars on legal health services. This dangerous legislation would
jeopardize the availability of safe reproductive health care services
for all American women. In addition to intentionally interfering with
women's access to health services, this bill would result in higher
taxes for small businesses, and permanently bar military service women,
civil servants, D.C. residents, and low-income women from abortion
coverage.
For 2014, I propose a New Year's resolution for this Congress. Let's
cease the tired partisan ploys, and work together on legislation that
expands--not limits--Americans' access to quality health care coverage.
Let's work together to craft legislation that accelerates job growth,
and let's work together to ensure that Americans get their unemployment
benefits.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing this critical
bill to the floor today. I'd also like to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for authoring this legislation.
Coming on the heels of the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, this bill
signifies our staunch support of life and the importance of preventing
taxpayers' funds from being used to pay for abortion.
For years, our government has had an uneven approach to federal
funding of abortions. This bill would create a single, unified policy
across all federal agencies. U.S. taxpayer funds are not to be used to
pay for abortions whether it be funding for elective abortion coverage
through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human
Services Appropriations Act; funding for health plans that include
elective abortion coverage for Federal employees; congressionally
appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia; or funding
through the Peace Corps or

[[Page H1470]]

federal prisons or federal immigration detention centers to pay for
elective abortion.
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will do just what the title
says. It will ban the use of federal funds for abortion or health plans
that cover abortion. H.R. 7 prohibits abortions at facilities owned or
operated by the federal government, and prevents federal employees from
performing abortions within the scope of their employment.
The founding fathers strongly believed that human beings are created
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
among which is the right to life, and therefore the right to life of
each human being should be preserved and protected by every human being
in the society and by the society as a whole. It is our duty as Members
of Congress to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7--the No
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
Our Founding Fathers, when writing the Declaration of Independence,
listed three rights that this Congress has an obligation to protect,
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe strongly that life begins at conception and thus it's our
obligation to protect the right to life, especially for the most
defenseless.
It's unconscionable to me that some would even consider using Federal
dollars to perform these heinous acts against the unborn.
Unfortunately, there are some who would like this practice to continue
even though a majority of Americans don't believe that taxpayer funds
should be used to abort a baby.
The bill that we're debating today prohibits taxpayer-funded
abortions but leaves exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the
mother. This legislation also holds the President's health care law to
the same standard by making sure those receiving assistance to
participate in the newly formed health care exchanges aren't able to
receive abortion on demand.
Like many parents, I will never forget when I first heard my child's
heart beat. It was a sign of a healthy, living child of God. It was a
defining moment for me as a father knowing that my wife and I were
bringing and responsible for another human being.
I strongly urge the House to pass this bill because we cannot and
shouldn't accept abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my
opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
Longstanding federal policy explicitly prohibits the use of federal
funds for abortions, except for certain narrow circumstances of rape,
incest, or severe health complications that threaten the life of the
mother. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) maintains this ban and a federal
appeals court confirmed that no federal dollars may be used to pay for
abortion services under the law.
Far more sweeping in scope than the title implies, the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion Act goes well beyond codifying the Hyde amendment
and protecting public funds. This bill intrudes on women's reproductive
autonomy and access to health care, manipulates the tax code to put
additional financial burdens on many women and small businesses, and
unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices available to
consumers today.
The House of Representatives should be spending our time working to
improve access to health care for all Americans, instead of deceptive
legislation that interferes with a woman's ability to make personal,
private medical decisions.

{time} 1630

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. MOORE. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. MOORE moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7 to the Committee on the
Judiciary with instructions to report the bill back to the House
forthwith with the following amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

=========================== NOTE ===========================

January 28, 2014, on page H1470, the following appeared: The
SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows: Add, at the end of the bill, the
following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.The Clerk
read as follows: Ms. MOORE moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7 to
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the table
of contents accordingly):

========================= END NOTE =========================

TITLE III--RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 301. PROTECTING THE MEDICAL PRIVACY OF WOMEN, INCLUDING
VICTIMS OF RAPE AND INCEST.

Nothing in title I, section 201(b), or section 202 of this
Act shall be construed to authorize any party to violate,
directly or indirectly, the medical privacy of any woman,
including the victims of rape or incest, with respect to her
choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance coverage.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple, as
the Clerk stated. It will ensure that nothing in this bill shall be
construed to authorize any party to violate the medical privacy of any
woman, including the victims of rape or incest with respect to her
choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance.
Here we are today, Madam Speaker, on the day of the State of the
Union when long-term unemployment insurance has lapsed, debating a
recycled bill that attacks women's health care. This is truly an out-
of-touch moment for the majority.
The legislation under consideration today fundamentally lacks
compassion. Women's health advocates have expressed strong concerns
about its impact on women's right to privacy when it comes to their
medical care and decisions. This bill could have damaging effects on
women who have been raped and victimized by incest, who suffer from
debilitating illnesses like the one that the gentlelady from California
described, Vicky, who want nothing more than their right to make their
own personal health care decisions with their own private insurance.
I have heard people continuously say that this is a recodification of
the Hyde amendment. We all abide by the Hyde amendment. This bill seeks
to strip women of their rights to have insurance even in the private
insurance market. That is why I invite my colleagues to join me in
passing this motion to recommit today, to ensure that we do not
unintentionally eviscerate protections that are fundamental to women's
health and liberty.
We are greatly concerned about this legislation, that it would force
women in private health insurance to have to ``justify'' their need for
a full range of reproductive health care services even if their life is
in danger or if they have been the victim of sexual assault or incest.
This legislation, again, could remove the option for a health insurance
company to choose to offer comprehensive women's health services.
Many of us remember, some of us on a very personal level, the
egregious history of this issue. Many of us remember the shame and
stigma that women--victims--faced, and still face when they come
forward to seek services. Depending on how this bill is implemented, a
woman could be required to provide extensive documentation to save her
own life or even prove to her insurance company that she was assaulted.
What will happen? Will she have to go to court, Madam Speaker? Will
there be an IRS audit?
Madam Speaker, there are just so many unanswered questions, and the
answers could have meaningful consequences for women across our entire
country.
What kind of proof would a woman need to exercise options for health
care? Who gets to determine whether or not a woman's sexual assault was
a legitimate rape? What kind of intensively private information would
be required to establish this proof? Who in the insurance company or
other entity would be equipped to make a ruling on the validity laid
out in the bill?
Oh, we remember our history as women, of humiliation and public
degradation that forced victims of rape or incest to stay in the
shadows rather than to get the health care they need and deserve, or to
seek justice against their attacker.
This motion to recommit simply makes sure that we uphold our history
of protecting the confidentiality and medical privacy of women,
upholding women's constitutional right to health care, particularly
those who are victims of terrible crimes. I urge my colleagues to adopt
this motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and rise
in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.

[[Page H1471]]

The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that we have
an MTR when just 2 weeks ago we brought to this floor a bill that
Chairman Pitts brought from Energy and Commerce that addressed the
privacy issues and concerns of all Americans that have had to go to the
healthcare.gov site. I would remind my colleagues that there were 67
Members of their caucus that crossed the aisle and voted with us.
Privacy is an important issue, and we are concerned about that issue
for all Americans.
I would also remind my colleagues who have inquired about the
possibility of an IRS audit that we have seen many of those come out of
this administration. I would remind them when they say we are
remembering our history as women that we all stand and we remember that
the first guarantee, the first right is the right to life. We have a
responsibility as Members of the people's House to make certain we do
the will of the people, and over 60 percent of all Americans say do not
use my money. All money we have is taxpayer money, and do not use it to
fund abortions. This is what we are doing.
I would remind all of my colleagues in the House that the bill that
is before us today upholds and follows a longstanding principle that
the American people and Members from both sides of the aisle have
supported for decades, that is, that taxpayer dollars should not be
spent on abortions and abortion coverage except in the instance of
rape, incest, and life of the mother.
The vast majority of my colleagues, Democrat colleagues, voted for
this same principle in last month's appropriations bill; yet this
simple fact seems to be eluding most of them who have come to the floor
today. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to
recommit and to vote for H.R. 7 and the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192,
nays 221, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 29]

YEAS--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
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
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

NAYS--221

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
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)
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
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
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Lipinski

NOT VOTING--17

Amodei
Blumenauer
Campbell
Chaffetz
Clay
Frelinghuysen
Hinojosa
Jones
LaMalfa
McCarthy (NY)
Miller (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Tipton
Westmoreland

{time} 1704

Messrs. REED, BENTIVOLIO, DesJARLAIS, MURPHY of Pennsylvania,
GOHMERT, RYAN of Wisconsin, and MESSER changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. WATERS, Messrs. GARAMENDI, HUFFMAN,
Mses. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs.
McINTYRE, RAHALL, and THOMPSON of Mississippi changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unexpectedly
detained and just missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. 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.

[[Page H1472]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 188, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 30]

YEAS--227

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
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
Cuellar
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
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
Matheson
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
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--188

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
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
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
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
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)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Broun (GA)

NOT VOTING--15

Amodei
Blumenauer
Campbell
Clay
Hinojosa
Jones
McCarthy (NY)
Miller (FL)
Petri
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Tipton
Westmoreland

{time} 1712

Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 30 I was not able to vote
because I was home recovering from knee surgery and pneumonia. Had I
been present, I would have voter ``no.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, due to being unavoidably
detained, I missed the following rollcall votes: No. 26, No. 27, No.
28, No. 29, and No. 30 on January 28, 2014 (today).
If present, I would have voted: rollcall vote No. 26--H. Res. 465, On
Ordering the Previous Question, ``aye;'' rollcall vote No. 27--H. Res.
465, On Agreeing to the Resolution, ``aye;'' rollcall vote No. 28--On
Approving the Journal, ``nay;'' rollcall vote No. 29--H.R. 7, On Motion
to Recommit, ``nay;'' rollcall vote No. 30--H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding
for Abortion Act, On Passage, ``aye.''

____________________