[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H620-H633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION
AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2017
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 55 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 55
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to
prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House
Resolution 55, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R.
7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full
Disclosure Act. This bipartisan bill will codify and make permanent
what is commonly referred to as the Hyde amendment and expand Hyde
amendment restrictions to all Federal agencies.
First offered in 1976, the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer dollars
from being used to fund abortions through government programs like
Medicaid. These restrictions have been maintained for more than 40
years through the annual appropriations process, including the most
recent continuing resolution passed last December. It is time that
these important protections against the use of taxpayer funding to pay
for abortion be made permanent.
A GAO report in 2014 found that, under ObamaCare, over 1,000
insurance plans covered elective abortion. Those plans are purchased
with taxpayer subsidies. H.R. 7 would stop this and make ObamaCare
conform to the Hyde amendment. If the Hyde amendment had been applied
to ObamaCare, as President Obama promised it would be, the number of
federally subsidized plans with elective abortion coverage would have
been zero.
As we work to repeal and replace the deeply flawed ObamaCare, we need
to ensure taxpayer subsidies are not used to pay for abortion coverage.
According to a Marist Poll conducted last July, 62 percent of
respondents--a majority of the women asked--and including 45 percent of
those who identify as pro-choice do not support taxpayer funding for
abortions. H.R. 7 simply codifies and makes permanent a protection
against the use of taxpayer funding for abortion that the majority of
Americans and certainly a majority of my constituents in Wyoming
support.
Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow consideration of H.R.
7.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the
customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another
closed rule. Last night in the Rules Committee, there were three
thoughtful amendments that were brought forward. They were all germane
and all complied with the rules of the House. Yet, once again, the
Republicans in the Rules Committee denied each and every one of them.
There is no opportunity for any amendments to be heard here today and
no opportunity for there to be a real debate, and I regret that very
much. Again, that is the trend that we see in this Congress.
Madam Speaker, I also oppose the underlying bill. I have a
fundamental belief that politicians in Washington should not have the
right to interfere in the health decisions of a woman; and this
deceptively titled bill will do just that. It continues this Republican
majority's never-ending crusade against women, and it is an attempt to
take away the constitutionally protected right to abortion services for
millions of women, especially middle class and low-income women. That
is wrong.
Madam Speaker, these healthcare decisions should be made between
women and their doctors, not politicians in Washington.
Who the hell are we in this Chamber to make these private and
oftentimes painful decisions for women?
Republicans claim that this bill is about codifying the Hyde
amendment, which has been around for four decades. That is 40 years too
long, in my opinion. But this bill isn't really about the Hyde
amendment. Despite what Republicans claim, this extreme and sweeping
bill would go even further by placing unprecedented limits on women's
access to reproductive health services even if they want to pay for
abortion coverage out of their own pockets.
Placing restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend
private dollars when purchasing health insurance would radically change
our Nation's longstanding policy. It is deeply troubling and must not
become law.
Madam Speaker, just days ago during the nationwide Women's March,
millions of people gathered all across the country and around the globe
to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the single largest
day of protest in American history. More than half a
[[Page H621]]
million people took to the streets right here in our Nation's Capital;
and I was proud to march with these dedicated men and women, along with
my wife and my daughter. My son, I am also proud to say, joined the
march in Boston.
The marches were peaceful. Not a single arrest was reported in
Washington, D.C. And they were also clear, sending a message to each of
us that women's rights are human rights.
But far from respecting those rights, the majority is here today
attacking a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions
about her health, her family, and her future.
Despite this dangerous bill passing the Republican-controlled House
in previous Congresses, it has traditionally died in the Senate; and I
hope the Senate keeps with that tradition.
The ultimate goal of congressional Republicans and of Donald Trump is
to overturn Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake about it. They want to take us
back to the days of back-alley abortions where women lost their lives.
That would be an awful thing to do.
I hope people who believe in upholding a woman's right to choose are
watching this debate, and I hope that they are just as outraged as I am
by this attempt to roll back women's healthcare rights. I hope they
call their Representatives in Congress today to speak out. This is a
time for action, and we need all of you to make your voices heard.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleague on the other side of the aisle
asked: Who the hell are we to be here speaking on this legislation and
passing this legislation?
Well, Madam Speaker, we are the Representatives of the people of this
country.
Madam Speaker, the most conservative estimates show that we have lost
54 million children to abortion since 1973. In a nation founded upon
principles that recognize the dignity of every human life, we should
not tolerate this extermination of innocent lives.
{time} 1245
The majority of Americans recognize this tragedy for what it is, and
there is consensus among them that they do not want their tax dollars
paying for a practice they sincerely oppose, and we are their
representatives.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been included in relevant
appropriations bills to prohibit Federal funding of abortions. Each
year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional
majorities and Presidents of both parties.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the Hyde
amendment has prevented hundreds of thousands of abortions each year.
That means millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde
amendment. After 40 years, it is time for this lifesaving amendment to
become permanent law.
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance
Full Disclosure Act, makes the Hyde amendment and other current
abortion funding prohibitions permanent and government-wide. This
commonsense measure restores a longstanding agreement that protects the
unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of
elective abortions.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to respect our
Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in
favor of this rule and H.R. 7.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, a few days ago, I stood immersed in a sea
of women, of men, and of children of all colors, creeds, and
backgrounds; citizens who fiercely believe that the diversity of their
opinions anchor, that they do not undermine, the values that we share,
and that their personal activism and unique advocacy could be traced
back to one collective, guiding principle--equality.
As hundreds of thousands of people swarmed this Capital, Boston
Common, town greens from Wilton, New Hampshire, to Newport, Oregon,
they sent a clear message to their government that when you treat any
of us as less, you threaten all of us.
And that is what this bill does. It tells women across this country
that their health can be compromised; that constitutionally guaranteed
means something different to them than it does to men.
If this was a simple attempt to limit a woman's legal right to
abortion or reproductive health care, that would be bad enough. But it
is more than that.
Combined with yesterday's reinstatement of the global gag rule, this
bill crystallizes the fact that our new GOP-led government sees women's
health care as expendable, both within and far beyond our borders.
Make no mistake, if my colleagues continue down this path, I know
that there will be a few million men, women, and children willing to
keep marching.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have referred several times now to the massive turnout for the women's
march here, and we, ourselves, will be having, I am sure, a very large
turnout this week; as well as I would like to point out that that
women's march excluded groups that were pro-life women's groups. And so
the notion that somehow it was reflective of all women in this Nation
is fundamentally misleading.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the cosponsor of this bill who has done tremendous
work.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank her for her leadership,
for being one of the prime cosponsors of the bill, H.R. 7, along with
Mrs. Black, Ms. Foxx, Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Noem, Mrs.
Hartzler, and all the others who have joined in as sponsors of this
lifesaving legislation.
I would also like to thank Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy,
Whip Scalise, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their
extraordinary leadership in defending the most innocent and the most
vulnerable among us, unborn children, as well as providing protections
for their mothers, and for bringing this legislation, H.R. 7, to the
floor.
Forty years ago, Madam Speaker, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment,
a law that continues to this day to proscribe Federal Medicaid funds
from being used to subsidize abortion in most circumstances.
More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 2 million
people are alive today, 2 million, because of the Hyde amendment. Two
million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because
public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise, while
their mothers benefited from prenatal health care and support; 2
million survivors who have had the opportunity to live and to enjoy the
most basic and the most elemental of all human rights, the right to
life.
Madam Speaker, we are experiencing a megatrend in America,
consistently reflected in polling data, including the most recent
polling data from the Marist Poll yesterday, that showed that 61
percent of Americans are against public funding for abortion, and most
want, even those who identify as pro-choice, more restrictions to
protect the innocent unborn.
People are seeing the truth of who abortion actually destroys, as
today's proudly shared, first baby pictures are most often of
ultrasound imaging photos depicting the amazing miracle of the
developing child in the womb.
Growing numbers of Americans are often shocked to learn that the
methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body,
including decapitation, and the severing of arms and legs, or the use
of drugs like RU-486 that literally starve the child to death before
forcibly expelling her or him from the safety of the womb.
Yet, the billion-dollar abortion industry continues to cleverly
market the chief sophistry of choice, while going to extraordinary
lengths to cover up, ignore, and trivialize the battered victim child
in the womb.
Madam Speaker, pro-life Americans struggle for the day when abortion
violence will be replaced by compassion and empathy for women and
respect for
[[Page H622]]
the weak and most vulnerable among us, the child in the womb. They
believe, as do my pro-life colleagues, that we ought to love them both,
mother and child, and not fund the destruction of children through
abortion.
Lawmakers also need to hear the courageous voices of women who are
silent no more, a rapidly expanding number of women who share the agony
and heartbreak that they have endured after procuring an abortion.
As I mentioned, yesterday there was a poll that came out, and, again,
it found that 61 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for
abortion, and only 35 percent support it, which is precisely what we
seek to accomplish with enactment of H.R. 7. It would make the Hyde
amendment and other current abortion funding restrictions permanent and
government-wide.
I would note, parenthetically, that soon after the Hyde amendment was
enacted in 1976, other abortion funding riders were enacted into law,
and Hyde itself was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980.
In 1983, I authored the ban on funding abortion in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits program. Most must be renewed legislatively
each and every year. This legislation would make it permanent.
The legislation ensures that the Affordable Care Act, until repeal,
conforms with the Hyde amendment.
I would remind my colleagues that just a few feet from where I stand,
on September 9, 2009--and I have his speech right in front of me--the
President of the United States said: ``And one more misunderstanding I
want to clear up--under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to
fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.''
Well, on the latter, the conscience laws remained in place, but they
were just simply not enforced.
And of course we know now, as my good friend, Ms. Cheney, mentioned,
we know that, according to the GAO--because people kept saying in the
early years, oh, there is no funding, public funding for abortion, so
we asked GAO to look into it. They came back and said there is much--
over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that
appeared in The Washington Post: ``Does Obamacare provide federal
subsidies for elective abortions?'' It talks about the GAO report, and
it basically says that those who claim that it does, they earn three
Pinocchios.
[Jan. 26, 2017]
Does Obamacare Provide Federal Subsidies for Elective Abortions?
(By Michelle Ye Hee Lee)
``The president's health-care law authorized massive
subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private
health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other
words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay
for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.''--Rep.
Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), House debate, Jan. 22, 2015
The argument that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a.
Obamacare, provides federal subsidies for abortions came up
several times during the House debate on an antiabortion
bill.
The bill would prohibit using federal funds for any
abortions or for any health plans that cover abortions. Under
Obamacare, federal funds can be used to cover abortions for
pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the
mother's life. But no federal subsidies for premiums can be
used for elective abortions. The House debate centered on
whether this restriction is being enforced, and whether
additional protection for taxpayers are needed.
There often is overheated rhetoric in the abortion debate
that cannot be fact-checked. (The Fact Checker previously
examined Democrats' claims following the Hobby Lobby ruling.)
The bill's opponents, who support abortion rights, say the
system works and that the measure would unnecessarily
restrict women's private insurance choices. Lawmakers who
oppose abortion rights don't buy it; they say the system is
just an accounting gimmick. The goal of this fact check is
not to relitigate the debate but to examine evidence to
support the above statement, which was repeated throughout
the debate.
Foxx, one of the lawmakers arguing for the bill, was among
several Republicans who claimed federal subsidies are paying
for elective abortions. Does this accurately portray how
abortions are covered under Obamacare?
The Facts
The House passed H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, on the
anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
The bill was a watered-down measure that the House took up at
the last minute after GOP leaders pulled an initial, more
restrictive bill.
Public funding for abortions is intricately structured.
Under the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can't be used for
elective abortions under Medicaid-funded plans. Some states
do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without
passing on any cost to the federal government.
Under Obamacare, health insurance plans could cover some or
all elective abortions, but they can't use federal tax
credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Insurance providers
that cover elective abortions must charge consumers
separately and deposit the money into a separate account that
contains no federal money. Providers need to bill enrollees
separately for elective abortions by itemizing them
separately in monthly bills or sending separate bills.
States can pass laws to ban or restrict health plans from
providing coverage for elective abortions. In 2014, 23 states
restricted coverage for these procedures. There were 1,036
plans in 28 states that provided some or all coverage for
elective abortions.
In a speech to Congress and a subsequent executive order,
President Obama gave assurances that federal subsidies would
not be used to cover elective abortion services. He ordered
Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and
Budget to issue a guideline for states so they can comply
with billing and funding segregation requirements.
Obama's not keeping his promise, say supporters of H.R. 7.
Staffers for Foxx and two of the other lawmakers who made
similar claims--H.R. 7 sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and
Rep. Ana Wagner (R-MO.)--pointed to a September 2014
Government Accountability Office report. At the request of
GOP leaders, the GAO examined whether health plans were
following the elective abortion billing requirements.
GAO picked 18 plans in 10 states with no laws restricting
abortion coverage as a non-probability sample representing a
quarter of all health plans that cover elective abortions.
GAO found 17 of 18 issuers were not separately billing
consumers. The one remaining issuer said its bills show there
is a charge ``for coverage of services for which member
subsidies may not be used.''
These issuers did not give blanket coverage for all
abortions. One covered abortions that a health-care provider
determines necessary, and two limited coverage to no more
than one elective abortion a year. All 18 issuers had payment
requirements such as co-pays, deductions and out-of-pocket
costs.
The report did not examine whether the providers were
illegally using federal subsidies to pay for elective
abortion services. In response to the report, HHS released a
new set of regulations to clarify billing and funding
segregation requirements.
Experts say the GAO's findings do not necessarily mean
insurance providers are inappropriately using federal
subsidies to cover abortion services. There is no government
or industry agency tracking insurers' compliance, making it
impossible to know whether providers are following the law,
they said.
``It's really not clear how these different plans are being
operationalized,'' said Alina Salganicoff, Kaiser Family
Foundation's director of women's health policy.
The GAO report found premium amounts collected from
elective abortion services ranged from 51 cents to $1.46 per
enrollee per month. To put this in context, the national
average premium for a 40-year-old person purchasing coverage
through the marketplace was between $224 to $270 per month,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (An earlier, non-
age-specific average monthly estimate was $241.) Even if the
maximum charge ($1.46) was added to the cheapest health plan
($224), the elective abortion surcharge is less than 1
percent of the monthly bill.
The key point made by lawmakers and advocacy groups who
oppose abortion rights is that money is fungible, and that it
doesn't matter exactly how the money is being collected. A
dollar is a dollar, they say, and every dollar paid to an
insurance provider in the marketplace ultimately goes into
collective risk pools that are used to rim government-
subsidized health insurance, so taxpayers are effectively
paying for elective abortions.
``The point is the federal subsidies provided for those
1,036 plans are funding abortion just as much as the private
funds contributed by the individual. That is consistent with
the commonly held understanding that money is fungible and
the funds received by the insurance company are used to pay
all benefits,'' Sheridan Watson, Foxx's communications
director, wrote to The Fact Checker.
The Pinocchio Test
The GAO's report found that the insurers it studied were
not following billing requirements. But experts say that does
not necessarily mean the providers were illegally using
federal subsidies for abortions. Even if they were, Foxx's
statement that Obamacare authorized ``massive'' subsidies is
an exaggeration. Based on the estimates above, abortion
charges would range from 0.2 percent to 0.65 percent of an
enrollee's monthly bill.
The claim that ``hard-earned taxpayer dollars'' are paying
for abortions ``on demand'' implies that taxpayers foot the
abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality,
some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which
abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment
requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.
[[Page H623]]
Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit
the billing and funding separation requirement for elective
abortion services. Billing doesn't matter, they say, because
federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in
a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can't
be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies
are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate
portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO
report do not support this argument.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
7.
On Saturday, I joined millions of women, men, and children who took
to the streets and raised their voices in defense of equality. We
marched because women's rights are truly human rights. We marched
because women should be able to make their own choices about their own
bodies. We marched because everyone deserves health care, not just the
privileged few.
And yet, here we find ourselves voting on another Republican attempt
to cut off reproductive health care from the people who need it the
most. H.R. 7 would be devastating for all women, but would
disproportionately impact low-income families, women of color,
immigrants, and young people.
But we were reminded this weekend that, as women, our destinies are
tied together, and we will not be silent as Republicans attempt to
interfere with a woman's constitutional right to choose. Women are
watching.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
to provide consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bill is,
quite literally, the least we can do for American taxpayers and our
voiceless unborn.
Frankly, the fact that we are even here discussing this, and that
there is opposition to this bill at all, really does break my heart,
and it speaks to the depths of the entanglement with the big abortion
industry that exist in some corners of this Chamber. Because, at the
end of the day, you know what this bill really is about? The right to
choose.
We hear our friends across the aisle use the phrase a lot. But what
about the other right to choose, the right of the taxpayer to choose
not to pay for the practice that violates everything that they believe?
That is what we are here to protect.
The American people support this policy, with 6 in 10 surveyed saying
that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. And these
are both pro-life and pro-choice.
So today, Madam Speaker, I am asking my colleagues across the aisle
to honor the will of their constituents. I am asking them to remember
the good old Democratic rallying cry of safe, legal, and rare abortion.
Obviously, abortion is not rare today when over 330,000 abortions are
performed in 1 year.
If my colleagues still believe these words, they will join us in
supporting this modest solution to keep unsuspecting taxpayers off of
the hook for this practice. And if they can't vote for this bill then
there is truly not a single limit on abortion that they will accept,
and that is a sad commentary on the state of politics.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just clarify for the Record that there is no Federal funding
for abortion. All you have to do is read the Hyde amendment, which has
been in effect for 40 years. I don't support it, but that is the law of
the land.
The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. So if you
want to talk about polls, the overwhelming number of Americans believe
that abortions should be safe and legal.
I also would like to say that while my colleagues are working
overtime to try to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is
because of Planned Parenthood, the counseling that is provided, and the
reproductive services that are provided at their clinics, and
contraception, that the number of abortions have decreased in this
country.
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question. And if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to
bring up legislation, which I am happy to be a cosponsor of, along with
Ms. Eshoo, that would require sitting Presidents and Presidential
nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.
{time} 1300
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
The gentleman may continue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Despite the long tradition of Presidents and
Presidential nominees of disclosing their tax returns, Donald Trump has
refused to release his, and his spokesperson recently said that he has
no intention of doing so. The American people expect and deserve
transparency, which this legislation would ensure.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, between his refusal to release his tax
returns and all these business conflicts of interest, this Presidency
is on a collision course with corruption.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our effort here.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank our wonderful colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so that this bill that I have authored, the Presidential Tax
Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a
vote.
Now, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the
President and future Presidential nominees of both parties to disclose
their tax returns. Many Americans took for granted that this was
covered by law, but what we have had is a decades-long tradition of
voluntary disclosure by both Republican and Democratic nominees for the
Presidency.
For the first time since the immediate post-Watergate era, candidate
Trump and now President Trump has refused to release his tax returns to
the public. Those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the
world should be held to the highest standard of transparency to ensure
the best interests of the American people are met.
Tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they
contain highly instructive information, including whether the candidate
paid any taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom,
whether they have made charitable donations, and whether they have
taken advantage of tax loopholes or offshore tax shelters.
The President and his spokesperson have both recently said that he
will not release his tax returns because the American people ``don't
care.'' I beg to differ. The top petition on the Web site of the White
House calls for the release of the President's tax returns with over
300,000 signatures already on it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll
released last week found that 74 percent of the American people,
including 53 percent of whom are Republicans, believe the President
should release his tax returns. We want a President free of conflicts
of interest.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous
question and to vote for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle would rather talk about just about anything besides
the text and the substance of the rule and the bill that we are about
to consider.
[[Page H624]]
The transparency that is important to this debate and that is
relevant for this discussion today is transparency that is in the rule
and in this bill that would require that insurance companies make sure
that people understand what they are purchasing and whether or not they
are purchasing a plan that will, in fact, provide abortion coverage.
I also just want to note that although there may be some in this
Chamber who view The Washington Post Fact Checker as the oracle and
font of all wisdom, he got this one wrong, as he has in many cases,
and, in fact, failed to understand that there are, as we meet here
today, monthly advanced payments of U.S. taxpayer funding going to
insurance companies or to exchanges to pay for health insurance plans
that subsidize abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Jody B. Hice).
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from
Wyoming.
Madam Speaker, regardless of attempts from the other side to distract
and derail what we are discussing, the vote today is on the permanent
application of the Hyde amendment, which would ban taxpayer dollars
from being used for abortion.
The truth is that taxpayers get up and go to work every day. They
work by the sweat of their brow. The majority of them find the practice
of abortion to be a serious violation of their personal beliefs. Under
that situation and scenario, it is unconscionable that this body would
even consider taking the money of those hardworking taxpayers and using
their money to fund abortion.
The Hyde amendment has traditionally maintained bipartisan support.
It has been signed into law by both Democratic and Republican
Presidents since 1976. In addition to that, the Supreme Court has
upheld the law, doing so in 1980, ruling that, regardless of the
freedom recognized in Roe v. Wade to terminate a pregnancy, there is
not a constitutional entitlement to use taxpayer money to finance such
an act.
The Hyde amendment has saved the lives of roughly 300,000 unborn
children annually. It is bipartisan, it has been upheld by the Supreme
Court, and it protects taxpayers who have a conscientious objection. So
I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support H.R. 7 when it comes before the full House for a vote today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I just would like to assure my colleague from Wyoming
that we are not trying to distract when we bring up the issue of the
President's tax returns, but we have no opportunity here to be heard.
The bill before us, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a closed
rule. It is a Putin rule, if you will, where it is their way or the
highway and where no debate is allowed on alternative ideas. We had
three thoughtful amendments brought before the Rules Committee last
night, all germane, all in compliance with the House rules. They
rejected all three of them.
On the issue of the Presidential tax returns, yes, we are bringing it
up because the American people want to know whether there are conflicts
of interest. They don't want the White House to be known for being a
place of corruption. They want our Presidents to follow the rules and
the laws of the land. So people want to know, but we have been given no
opportunity to do that.
So forgive me if we take procedural motions to try to make our point,
but my colleagues on the Republican side lock us out of any opportunity
to be heard. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy
goes to die, I am sad to say, and I hope that changes.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, like many of us this past Saturday, I marched in
Washington with millions of women across the country claiming their
human rights and claiming their basic individuals rights. Madam
Speaker, the previous speaker on the other side made mention of the
fact that the Hyde amendment is the law of the land and that it has
been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. We know. We get it.
That is not what this is about.
This is about going well beyond that and actually limiting what women
can do and what individuals can do with their own money when acquiring
health care that includes the reproductive health services that are the
subject of this debate.
How many times do we have to come to the floor to make the point that
choices about women's health care should be made between a woman and
her doctor, not somebody in Washington dictating to women what they can
do with their own money and with their own bodies?
Do you know what else is the law of the land? Do you know what else
has been upheld by the Supreme Court almost a half a century ago?
That fundamental right that women have over the determinations they
make for themselves about their own bodies. That has been upheld by the
United States Supreme Court as well.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Madam Speaker, for the past 30 years, through the Hyde amendment, the
U.S. Congress has acted to prevent taxpayer money from being used to
pay for abortions. The bipartisan Hyde amendment has been an annual
rider on appropriations bills, but ObamaCare bypassed this abortion
funding prohibition leading to the largest expansion of taxpayer
funding of abortion in American history since Roe v. Wade.
That is why we desperately need to pass H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act to
permanently codify the Hyde amendment and apply it across the entire
Federal Government. This bill will also ensure that the prohibition is
not subject to annual threats and it will close the massive loophole
that was created by ObamaCare.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved the lives of over 2 million
babies--roughly the same number of people who live in the city of
Houston, Texas, where I serve as a U.S. Representative. For the sake of
these 2 million people and the millions more that will be saved, we
must permanently codify the Hyde amendment's pro-life protections.
Furthermore, as ObamaCare presented the largest expansion of
abortions since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, we must ensure that
the Hyde amendment covers all areas of the Federal Government. This
will ensure that taxpayer dollars are no longer used to subsidize
abortions.
H.R. 7 is a critical piece of legislation that is supported by nearly
two-thirds of the American people who do not want the government to be
in the business of killing unborn babies. Congress must act to preserve
the Hyde amendment for posterity and to put an immediate end to the
ongoing harm being done with taxpayers' money.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of this
much-needed bill to end taxpayer funding of abortion once and for all.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic
Caucus.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the
misnamed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
Just 2 days ago, our Nation celebrated the 44th anniversary of Roe v.
Wade, affirming that a woman has a constitutional right to make the
decision of what is best for herself and her family. However,
Republicans have been relentless in their pursuit to deny women this
constitutional right, and H.R. 7 is just another reckless example.
H.R. 7 will have devastating consequences on every single woman in
America. The bill would deny women, families, and small businesses tax
credits if they elect an insurance plan that covers abortions. The IRS
would be inserted into one of the most important and private decisions
a woman can make and one that should be solely between her and her
doctor. That is the most egregious and offensive example of government
overreach that I can think of.
[[Page H625]]
Madam Speaker, women are responsible. Women are smart. Women know
what is best for them, and women can make their own choices. Allow them
to do that and vote against H.R. 7.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming. I
am so grateful to be here to talk on this important subject.
Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said: ``The care of human life
and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object
of good government.''
It is with Jefferson's words in mind that I rise today as an original
cosponsor in support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
This legislation sustains Mr. Jefferson's vision of good government.
It makes permanent the Hyde amendment restricting Federal funding for
abortions and thereby ensuring the care of human life and not its
destruction. Most Americans oppose the use of their tax dollars to pay
for abortions.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved nearly 2 million unborn
children and continues to save more than 60,000 lives in the United
States every year. Americans also deserve to know--before they purchase
it--if their healthcare plans cover elective abortion.
H.R. 7 addresses the abortion secrecy clause in the Affordable Care
Act. It requires qualified plans to disclose to enrollees at the time
of enrollment whether a plan covers abortion. Americans should never be
forced to pay for someone's abortion. This legislation will restore the
status quo on government funding for elective abortions and make this
policy permanent and consistent across the Federal Government.
I commend Congressman Smith and Congressman Lipinski for their
bipartisan cooperation in introducing this bill, and I am pleased to
support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, let me tell you about
Chelsea, a mother of two young children, who was on Medicaid when she
was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She never missed her birth control
pills, but when she went to the clinic for treatment, she was told that
she was pregnant and could not get the surgery she needed because of
the pregnancy.
{time} 1315
Why is that? Because of the Hyde rule, Medicaid would not cover the
abortion care that she needed, and her cancer treatment was delayed,
obviously compromising her health.
Instead of discussing ways to make Chelsea's situation better, we are
considering a bill that would make the ban on abortion care services
under Medicaid permanent.
This is not about women asking for free, federally funded abortions.
This is about women like Chelsea being able to receive the medical care
they desperately need.
We saw this weekend millions of women took to the streets throughout
our country in a historic movement. So let's show them that we are
listening by rejecting this bill that makes bad policy permanent.
Madam Speaker, let's leave a woman's medical decision between her and
her doctor and reject this far-reaching bill.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I am just heart sick today to hear some
of my colleagues talking about how they were celebrating the 44th
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That is 60 million babies--little girls,
little boys--who have been aborted and no longer have a chance to live.
We could have had perhaps a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's. Who knows
what the potential of those 60 million lives could have been.
So it is hard to hear my colleagues talk about a celebration of that
and using the terminology that this bill deals with abortion care.
Abortion isn't care and abortion isn't services. It is taking a life.
This bill does nothing to change Roe v. Wade, although I wish it
could, but it simply says that taxpayers do not have to participate in
it. The taxpayers all across this country who believe that every life
is precious work hard and send in their money every April 15. They
entrust it to us, their elected officials. We have national security
issues, we have roads, we have education. They don't want to see it go
to something like taking a life through abortion.
So this is what we are doing today, simply making permanent a policy
that we have had to put in as an amendment to appropriations every year
and fight for. This is just making sure that, here in Washington, in
America, the taxpayers invest in women's health care and are not
investing in abortion.
We should be about saving lives, not taking them. That is what this
bill does. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 7, a dangerous attack on the right of women to
make their own decisions about their health and their bodies.
On Saturday, I, too, joined the peaceful march in our Nation's
Capital with hundreds of thousands of women and men. Millions more
marched in Oregon, across the country, and around the world to demand
that our voices be heard.
This legislation, one of the majority's first priorities under the
Trump administration, won't create jobs. It will create barriers to
reproductive health care for countless women. It will
disproportionately affect low-income women, young women, women of
color, women in rural communities, and immigrant women. This bill turns
back the clock. It puts women's lives at risk.
Restricting abortion does not make it go away. It makes it unsafe.
This bill will drive women back to back alleys.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 7.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court made an
important decision. It said that women have a constitutional right to
make decisions about their own health care and their own bodies, not
the government.
It was just a few days ago that millions of American women marched
all across the United States, reaffirming their opposition to efforts
to take away their rights. That is what this bill would do.
There has been a lot of discussion about taxpayers funding abortion.
That is not currently the law, not only in the Hyde amendment, but the
Affordable Care Act requires women who wish to have this coverage to
pay for it themselves.
We have heard a lot about alternative facts recently, but the fact is
there is no taxpayer money for abortion in the United States--there
hasn't ever been for many years--and that was also the accommodation
that the Supreme Court made.
Let's make sure that the constitutional rights of women to control
their own bodies is not attacked.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point in terms of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle and the constant reference to women,
women, women, as though all women believe what they believe.
They have very strongly held views on the other side of the aisle,
but the notion that somehow all women can be categorized as being pro-
abortion is just simply wrong and, frankly, offensive to those of us
who have different views.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say, at this point in time, that we
are not making any kind of a dangerous attack on women's rights.
My colleagues have accused us of being relentless. We are relentless.
We are relentless, Madam Speaker. We are relentless in defense of the
unborn, the most vulnerable among us.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 7.
[[Page H626]]
For decades, Congress has annually passed the Hyde amendment, which
has prevented any government program from funding or subsidizing
elective abortion. The Hyde amendment has saved over 2 million unborn
children since 1976, including 100,000 lives in Pennsylvania.
For decades, this annual restriction on taxpayer funding of abortion
has been referred to as the Hyde amendment because it was the late
Congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois who sought to protect as many
unborn children as he could during his service in Congress.
Recollecting his own work, Congressman Hyde offered this poignant
reflection:
``When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome
moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote,
that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you
are there alone standing before God--and a terror will rip through your
soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the
pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of
voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard
beautifully and clearly in the next world--and they will plead for
everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, `Spare
him because he loved us'. . . . ''
Henry Hyde is not forgotten, and this work goes on.
Despite former-President Obama's promise that no abortion would be
covered by his healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act authorized and
appropriated funds for healthcare plans with abortion coverage. This
must stop.
We must remember, abortion is not health care, and in no way should
the government fund or subsidize the violent destruction of unborn
children.
It is the overwhelming opinion of Americans, including those who
identify as pro-choice, that taxpayer dollars should not be used for
abortion. This legislation is absolutely essential to apply the
principles of the Hyde amendment consistently across the Federal
Government.
As hundreds of thousands march this Friday on the 44th anniversary of
Roe v. Wade, a decision Justice White referred to as an exercise in raw
judicial power, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank my good
friend from the great State of Massachusetts for his extraordinary
leadership on this issue and so many others and for standing up for
women. The right to speak is a very special one.
Madam Speaker, the right to choose is meaningless without the access
to choose. That is what this bill is about. It is cutting off access to
choice. That is why the anti-choice movement is so strongly behind this
bill.
H.R. 7 is a cynical attempt to use the Federal Government's power of
the purse to restrict a woman's access to her constitutionally
protected right to an abortion.
I oppose the Hyde amendment and believe that we should be increasing
access to comprehensive health care, not reducing it. But this bill
makes the Hyde amendment permanent. It goes further. It prohibits the
Affordable Care Act tax credits for individuals and employers who
choose plans that cover abortion.
H.R. 7 would restrict abortion coverage or make such coverage too
burdensome or expensive for many Americans to afford. It is a step back
towards a dark and ugly time when anti-abortion laws took a substantial
toll on women's health and, in many cases, cost them their very lives.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and the
underlying bill.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I will just remind Members
that, in order to gain votes of several pro-life Democrats needed for
passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama issued an executive
order on March 24, 2010, and it said:
The Affordable Care Act maintains current Hyde restrictions
governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to
newly created health insurance exchanges.
The problem is, it never happened.
There were people who are saying even today that there is no taxpayer
funding for abortion. Yes, there is. We finally went to the GAO. We
asked them to do a study, an audit. They spent a full year on it and
confirmed that the plans that we were subsidizing with taxpayer dollars
covered abortion.
I remind my colleagues that, under the Hyde amendment, plans that pay
for abortion are precluded from receiving government funding. 1,036
Affordable Care Act exchange plans were found to have abortion on
demand being paid for by the taxpayers.
So if the Hyde amendment had been applied as former President Obama
had said it would, there would have been zero coverage for abortion,
except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.
I stand here in a unique position; first, to oppose this sweeping
attack on women's reproductive health in its entirety, but I also am
compelled to discuss the unique provision that singles out the District
of Columbia, permanently barring the District of Columbia from spending
its own local funds--not a cent of it raised in this Congress--on
abortion services for low-income women, thus uniquely denying the
District of Columbia government the right that local and State
governments exercise throughout the United States using their own local
funds.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 goes further. It insults the District of
Columbia.
Just to make sure everybody understands that the bill means to
include the District of Columbia, it tortuously defines or redefines
the term ``Federal Government'' to include a local jurisdiction, the
``District of Columbia government.''
The District of Columbia government is thrown in with the Federal
Government. We are talking about U.S. citizens, the people I represent,
who are number one per capita in taxes raised to support the government
of the United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. NORTON. This bill, of course, is annual, and it is less inclined
to become law than to be part of the annual upcoming march.
We do not intend, Madam Speaker, to let our colleagues get away with
not supporting democracy, including the right of local governments to
spend their own local funds on choice. Everywhere on Earth you can
support such a right, except for the 700,000 people who live in your
own Nation's Capital.
{time} 1330
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, under the Constitution, all funds for the
District of Columbia are appropriated by the United States Congress, so
we in the Congress bear a particular and additional responsibility for
funds in the District of Columbia.
I would also note, Madam Speaker, that there are no limitations in
the District of Columbia on when an abortion can be performed; and
therefore, if we were to lift this amendment, if we were not to have
this rule in place, you could potentially have the U.S. taxpayers in a
situation where they were being forced to fund even late-term abortions
in the District of Columbia, which is fundamentally against the Hyde
amendment, fundamentally against everything that we have supported and
against the majority of the people in this Nation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Wyoming not only for being on the Committee on Rules, but also today
for handling her first rule. Welcome to Congress and welcome to the
Committee on Rules.
Madam Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is an extension
of, really, a bipartisan agreement that we have had for 30-plus years:
that we should not have abortions that are paid for by the taxpayer.
The bottom line is
[[Page H627]]
that this is a very difficult issue, no matter which side you might be
on; but I believe that the right thing to do is to say that, based upon
the morality and, really, the right thing, that the Federal Government,
the taxpayers, should not be engaged in paying for abortions, killing
of babies in this country.
We believe it is morally wrong, and all we are simply doing today is
standing up and saying we are going to extend the same privileges that
we have had on a bipartisan basis for 30-plus years not only with the
Hyde amendment, but placing that across all pieces, parts of
appropriations and bills and things that we do here in Congress. This
has absolutely nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to
choose. It has nothing to do with dealing with the Supreme Court. It
has everything to do with using taxpayer dollars.
Yesterday we had a very appropriate and a very timely conversation at
the Committee on Rules, and I think both sides handled their arguments
and their agreements and disagreements well. It is my hope that we do
this here today.
But let me say this, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
came up as an advocate for women, as an advocate for women who are
engaged in the scurrilous trading of women and misconduct with women. I
think he was seen for what he is. He is a strong advocate for life and
for women who need to feel safe in this country. He stood up yesterday
as an advocate for saying we should not use taxpayer money to pay for
abortions, and that is really what this bill is.
I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for allowing me to be here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas,
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says this bill has nothing to
do with taking away a woman's right to choose. I would beg to differ. I
think it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to
choose.
But this is the rule. I was hoping that maybe he would address the
fact that, again, three thoughtful amendments were brought before the
Committee on Rules yesterday by Democrats. They were all germane. They
all comply with the House rules. I was hoping he would explain why they
were all denied, especially since the bill before us didn't go through
regular order; it didn't go through a committee process to be brought
to the floor. This was just kind of plopped into the Committee on
Rules, and no amendments were made in order. That is not the way a
deliberative body should be run. There are disagreements on this issue,
but don't be afraid of allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard on this
House floor. But apparently he didn't want to talk about that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta).
Mr. PANETTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, a
bill which brings permanency to the Hyde amendment, a bill which
attempts to take away low-income women's reproductive rights.
Therefore, I submit to you that it is a bill more about divisive
politics than decent policy.
This past Saturday, I joined hundreds of my constituents on The
National Mall. We demonstrated our support for reproductive rights and
for women's health care across our Nation.
In my district, on the central coast of California, we have an
organization that administers those types of essential services. Mar
Monte Planned Parenthood provides over 60,000 preventive, reproductive,
and wellness healthcare visits each year, and for some that is the only
health care they can get or they can afford.
Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment isn't going anywhere, whether we
like it or not. So I submit to you that it is these types of bills that
do nothing to bring Congress together and everything to drive us apart
because it is bills like H.R. 7 that can harm the most vulnerable in my
community and across our Nation. That is why I respectfully ask my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 7.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule
and the underlying bill, H.R. 7. Forty-four years ago this week, before
I was even born, the Supreme Court recognized that the government has
no business coming between a woman and her doctor when it comes to
making personal medical decisions. Yet now, decades later, many in
Washington seem determined to turn back the clock on progress on
women's health and women's rights.
The new administration recently instituted a rule that would limit
the ability of women around the world to access accurate information
about their bodies and make their own medical decisions. And now the
House is considering a radical bill that would not only undermine a
woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, but also her
ability to even choose her own health insurance plan. On top of that,
the bill would actually raise taxes on small businesses who provide
their employees with access to comprehensive health coverage and impose
unfair burdens on the women of the United States military. These are
the facts.
I will always fight back against efforts to limit choice in women's
health, and that is why I strongly oppose this bill. This past weekend
we saw millions of women around the country and around the world,
including hundreds in my own hometown of Wyckoff, New Jersey, where I
was, rally against these backward and dangerous policies.
I urge my colleagues to turn their focus from rolling back women's
rights to actually focusing on getting things done for the people of
this country--creating jobs and lowering taxes.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman from Wyoming
if she has additional speakers.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 23 faith-based
organizations and communities urging Members to reject H.R. 7; a letter
from the American Civil Liberties Union urging Members to vote ``no''
on H.R. 7; a letter from 44 women's health, religious, and other
advocacy organizations strongly opposed to H.R. 7; and a letter from
the American Association of University Women urging Members to oppose
H.R. 7.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2014
Dear Representative: As leaders of faith-based
organizations and communities, we urge you to reject H.R. 7,
a bill introduced as the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act,'' which would harm a woman's health, economic
security, and religious liberty by making coverage of
abortion inaccessible in both public and private health
plans. Enclosed is a statement of shared principles that
compel us, together with 20 of our partner organizations from
the faith community, to speak out against legislation like
H.R. 7, which seeks to impose a narrowly-defined view of one
religious viewpoint on every citizen, threatening the freedom
of religion afforded to every individual by the U.S.
Constitution.
H.R. 7 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-
4). This bill would raise taxes on women and families, as
well as small businesses, who access or offer abortion
coverage as part of a comprehensive insurance plan. It would
do so by denying women and families a premium assistance tax
credit if they choose a plan in the health insurance
marketplace that includes abortion, a proposal soundly
rejected by Congress in the 2010 health reform debate. This
bill would also deny small employers a Small Business Tax
Credit for offering their workers comprehensive coverage that
includes abortion. Further, as amended in committee, this
bill would withhold abortion coverage from women enrolled in
a multistate, private insurance plan. Taken together, these
provisions would jeopardize coverage of abortion in the full
private insurance market, risking coverage that many women
and families have today; more than 80 percent of private
health plans currently cover abortion care.
Also among its provisions, H.R. 7 would make permanent
dangerous restrictions that withhold abortion coverage from
women who access coverage or care through federal programs,
such as women enrolled in Medicaid, federal employees, Native
American women, and others. It would also permanently
withhold abortion coverage from low-income women living in
the District of Columbia, a federal ban that goes against the
wishes of DC elected officials and voters. These provisions
would disproportionately harm women struggling to make ends
meet, risking their economic security, health and well-being,
and ability to make personal decisions in accordance with
their own conscience and religious or moral beliefs.
[[Page H628]]
Please see the enclosed statement outlining shared
principles of faith that compel us and our partners to speak
out against this harmful proposal. As communities and
organizations that represent diverse constituencies of faith,
we stand united in opposition to H.R. 7 given the danger it
poses to women and their families by jeopardizing affordable
and accessible insurance coverage of abortion.
We urge you to reject H.R. 7 when it reaches the House
floor for a vote.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kaufman,
CEO, National Council of Jewish Women.
Rev. Harry Knox,
President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice.
Jon O'Brien,
President, Catholics for Choice.
Interfaith Statement Opposing Restrictions on Women's Health Care
Options
The undersigned religious, religiously affiliated, and
faith-centered organizations and communities represent
millions of people of faith committed to women's health and
reproductive choices. We are deeply troubled by legislative
efforts designed to restrict women's access to comprehensive
reproductive health care options, including abortion,
contraception, HIV/STD testing, cancer screenings, and other
essential health services.
We recognize that issues surrounding women's reproductive
choices--and those regarding abortion in particular--are
complex. Although we come from diverse faith traditions, we
all agree that proposals aimed at restricting access to
reproductive healthcare would have devastating consequences
for women and their families, particularly low-income women.
We call on Congress and the President to reject these
intolerable measures.
As people of faith, the following common principles compel
us to speak out together against these proposals:
Striving for social justice and equal rights to health
care: All too often, legislation is proposed that would
create significant barriers to women's access to reproductive
health options and make it harder for women to make their own
reproductive choices based on their individual beliefs and
consciences. We are especially concerned about efforts to de-
fund the Title X Family Planning program and those
organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that serve as a
key part of our social safety net. Title X health centers and
clinics are on the public health front lines, serving low-
income individuals and other vulnerable populations. These
centers help men and women of limited means prevent
unintended pregnancies; they promote prevention of, and
treatment for HIV and other STDs; they offer life-saving
cancer screenings; and they provide crucial medically-
accurate information about sexual health. Title X providers
ensure that women who want to have children get the
information and care they need to promote a healthy
pregnancy. As faith-centered organizations, we are committed
to the most marginalized and the most vulnerable of our
society, especially those with limited financial means or
those who live in areas with limited access to services.
Reducing health care options for some, based on their
economic strata or geographic location, is profoundly unjust.
Respecting women's moral agency: We affirm women as moral
agents who have the capacity, right, and responsibility to
make their own decisions about sexuality, reproduction, and
their families. Legislation that eliminates health coverage
for and limits the availability of reproductive health care
services through funding restrictions would severely limit a
woman's ability to make decisions about her own health care
and about how best to care for her family, guided by her own
conscience, her personal circumstances, and her own moral or
faith tradition.
Valuing compassion and the obligation to protect every
woman's health and life: Restrictions on women's health care
options endanger women's lives. In particular, we oppose
proposals that would allow hospitals and individual health
workers to refuse to provide abortion services to a woman,
even when such care is necessary to save her life. As people
of faith, we strongly believe that a health worker's right to
refuse to provide certain services must not infringe on a
woman's right to access the health care she needs. Above all,
that refusal must not endanger her life. Health professionals
and the organizations that support them have an obligation to
ensure access to necessary services, whether directly or by
referral to an accessible alternative health care provider.
Safeguarding religious liberty: We believe that one
person's religious viewpoint must not be imposed on others.
Different faiths, and even groups within a single faith
community, hold varying views and opinions. Time and again,
our nation has answered this diversity of opinions by
upholding the founding principle of religious freedom.
Reproductive freedoms are integrally bound with religious
freedoms--a connection recognized by the Supreme Court's
1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Women have a right to make
reproductive health choices based on their own faith
tradition, free from constraints imposed by those seeking
to legislate one religious viewpoint or another. We oppose
legislation that would erode Americans' constitutionally
protected right to religious freedom.
As people of faith, we believe in compassion, justice, and
the dignity of all women. We understand that those who would
restrict women's access to comprehensive reproductive health
care are often motivated by their religious beliefs and seek
to impose their views on others. However, freedom of choice
means that every person is valued as a moral decision-maker,
free to make personal decisions about their reproductive
lives based on their own religious beliefs and consciences.
We cannot presume to tell others how best to inform and
listen to their own consciences as they make decisions about
whether and when to have children or how best to care for
their families. Today, and every day, we stand up as people
of faith for women's health and reproductive choices--and we
urge our government to do the same.
Signed:
Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International;
Catholics for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network;
Episcopal Women's Caucus; Global Faith and Justice Project,
Horizons Foundation; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist
Organization of America, Inc.; Jewish Council for Public
Affairs; Jewish Council on Urban Affairs; Jewish Women
International; Metropolitan Community Churches; Muslims for
Progressive Values.
National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist
Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities;
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Religious
Institute; Soulforce; The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries;
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations;
Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association; Unitarian
Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of Christ,
Justice and Witness Ministries; Women's Alliance for
Theology, Ethics and Ritual.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, January 23, 2017.
Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017''
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and
supporters, we urge Members of the House of Representatives
to vote no on H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of
2017.'' The ACLU opposes this legislation, which would make
harmful, discriminatory abortion coverage restrictions
permanent and interfere with private health insurance
coverage for abortion.
H.R. 7 would make permanent the Hyde Amendment and its
progeny, discriminatory abortion coverage restrictions that
single out and exclude abortion from a host of programs that
fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care.
These restrictions disproportionately impact those who
already face significant barriers to care--low-income
families, women of color, immigrants, young people, LGBTQ
people, and those in rural areas. They discriminate against
these women, who rely on the government for health care, by
severely restricting their access to a health care service
that is readily available to women of means and women with
private insurance.
A woman in need of abortion care who does not have
independent financial resources must scramble to raise the
necessary funds, delay receiving care, and is often left with
no choice but to carry to term in circumstances where she is
physically, emotionally, or financially unprepared to care
for a child. In fact, restricting Medicaid coverage of
abortion forces one in four poor women seeking abortion to
carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. When a woman seeking an
abortion is denied one, she is three times more likely to
fall into poverty than a woman who can obtain the care she
needs. If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and
other federal insurance programs) offers her assistance for
the necessary medical care. But if she needs to end her
pregnancy, the same programs will deny her coverage for her
abortion. The government should not interfere with a woman's
personal medical decisions by selectively withholding
benefits in this way.
H.R. 7 also takes particular aim at low-income women in the
District of Columbia. Although the use of federal funds is
currently restricted from covering most abortions, states are
free to use their own funds to include abortion coverage in
their medical assistance programs. The only exception is the
District of Columbia. H.R. 7 would make permanent a provision
that forbids the District from using its own locally raised
non-federal dollars to provide coverage for abortion for its
low-income residents. The D.C. abortion ban disenfranchises
the District's residents, and allows non-resident Members of
Congress who are not accountable to the people of the
District to impose their own ideology upon the District's
residents with impunity.
H.R 7 would also impact women's ability to purchase private
insurance that includes abortion coverage. It would revive
the so-called Stupak Amendment, rejected by the 111th
Congress, which would bar anyone receiving a federal premium
assistance credit from buying a private insurance policy that
includes abortion coverage on the Affordable Care Act's (ACA)
insurance exchanges. This is not only an attempt to
effectively ban abortion coverage in the exchanges by
encouraging insurers to exclude it, but it would have a
ripple effect on plans outside the exchanges that jeopardizes
abortion coverage for millions of women. Further, the
inaccurate disclosure requirements in H.R. 7
[[Page H629]]
would push insurance companies to drop abortion coverage and
deter women from purchasing plans that include such coverage
by misleading them about the cost of purchasing these plans.
These provisions are direct attacks on a woman's ability to
make personal medical decisions with complete and accurate
information.
Additionally, H.R. 7 rewrites tax law to penalize a single,
legal, medical procedure: abortion. It would deny small
businesses tax credits if the insurance they provide to their
employees includes abortion coverage, effectively coercing
employers to offer plans that exclude abortion. The bill
would also deny millions of women and families premium tax
credits if they purchase a health insurance plan that covers
abortion, forcing them to forgo comprehensive health
insurance plans in order to get the premium assistance they
need. This manipulation of the tax code is simply government
interference in taxpayers' private medical decisions and
should be rejected.
Abortion is basic, constitutionally-protected health care
for women. Yet H.R. 7 attacks women's fundamental right and
access to abortion. It first targets women--particularly poor
women and women of color who rely on the government for their
health care--and seeks to permanently deny them coverage for
a benefit to which they are entitled. Then, under the guise
of ``safeguarding'' taxpayer dollars, H.R. 7 advances an
aggressive campaign to destabilize the insurance market for
abortion coverage. Congress should be eliminating barriers to
women's ability to exercise their constitutionally protected
right to safe, legal abortion. Instead, H.R. 7 would
interfere with women's personal medical decisions by putting
even more bathers in the way.
For these reasons, the ACLU opposes H.R. 7 and urges
members of the House of Representatives to vote no.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
Director, Washington Legislative Office.
Georgeanne M. Usova,
Legislative Counsel.
____
Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations strongly
urge you to oppose the deceptive ``No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act'' (H.R. 7), a bill designed to fundamentally
alter the health insurance market--from a market where
abortion coverage is the industry standard to one where
abortion coverage is eliminated. H.R. 7 does this by changing
the laws that govern both private and public insurance and by
twisting the tax code into a tool to take away abortion
coverage from women who have it. Ultimately, this bill is
designed to deny women the decision whether or not to have an
abortion by taking away their insurance coverage.
H.R. 7 twists the tax code into a tool to take away health
insurance coverage that women have today. For example, the
bill would deny millions of women and families premium tax
credits if they purchase a health insurance plan that covers
abortion. The bill would force these women--particularly low
and moderate income women--to forego a health insurance plan
that includes abortion in order to get the premium assistance
they need. H.R. 7 would also raise taxes on small businesses
by denying the Small Business Health Tax Credit to businesses
that offer health insurance that covers abortion. This credit
was created to encourage small businesses to offer health
insurance to their employees by making it more affordable.
This bill would penalize employers for choosing comprehensive
coverage for their employees and their families.
H.R. 7 could cause the entire insurance market to drop
abortion coverage. The impact of H.R. 7's changes could be
that women across the country lose comprehensive health
insurance that includes abortion coverage. The elimination of
abortion coverage in the Marketplaces is expected to set the
industry standard, meaning that all plans, inside and outside
the Marketplace, could drop such coverage.
H.R. 7 introduces a new ban on private insurance by forcing
all multi-state insurance plans to drop abortion coverage.
Currently, the law requires that at least one multi-state
health insurance plan in a Marketplace must not provide
abortion coverage (except for narrow exceptions). H.R. 7
would replace this requirement with a dramatic restriction
banning abortion coverage in all multi-state health insurance
plans.
The Rules Committee Print of H.R. 7 includes new provisions
that would impose inaccurate and misleading disclosure
requirements regarding abortion coverage in plans offered in
the Marketplace. This bill overrides existing provisions of
the Affordable Care Act that provide consumers with
information about their health plans, and instead adds new
requirements intended to push insurance companies to drop
abortion coverage and deter women from purchasing plans that
include such coverage. Moreover, H.R. 7 wrongly asserts that
there is a ``surcharge'' in plans that cover abortion, and
would require women to be misled with this falsehood. These
new provisions are not about disclosure, but about
eliminating abortion coverage, in line with the rest of the
bill's dangerous provisions.
H.R. 7 would permanently ban federal health insurance
programs such as Medicaid from including abortion coverage.
H.R. 7 would codify harmful legislative riders that deny
abortion coverage to women who receive health insurance
through the federal government. Moreover, H.R. 7 makes
permanent a rider that denies the District of Columbia the
ability to decide whether to use its own local finds to
provide abortion coverage. These bans disproportionately
affect women of color and low-income women, denying these
women the ability to make their own important health care
decisions.
H.R. 7 would endanger women's health by eliminating
coverage of abortion even in circumstances where a woman
needs an abortion to prevent severe, permanent damage to her
health. Because H.R. 7 only makes exceptions in the cases
where the woman's life is endangered, or where she is the
survivor of rape or incest, it would leave women whose health
is seriously threatened by their pregnancies without access
to the care their doctors recommend to protect their health.
The impact can be especially harmful to women underserved by
the health care system and women with serious health
problems.
In summary, H.R. 7 would deny millions of women the ability
to make their own decision about whether to have an abortion.
H.R. 7 is a dangerous bill that jeopardizes women's health by
directly banning abortion coverage, by raising taxes on
families and small businesses that purchase comprehensive
insurance coverage, and by imposing ``disclosure''
requirements that encourage the elimination of abortion
coverage. The intent and impact of H.R. 7 is to forever
eliminate coverage of abortion in all insurance markets. We
strongly urge you to reject this bill.
Sincerely,
Advocates for Youth; American Association of University
Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union, American Nurses
Association, American Public Health Association; American
Society for Reproductive Medicine; Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); Asian & Pacific
Islander American Health Forum; Black Women's Health
Imperative; Catholics for Choice.
Center for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA; Feminist
Majority; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of
America, Inc.; Jewish Women International; Joint Action
Committee for Political Affairs; Medical Students for Choice;
Methodist Federation for Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice
America; National Abortion Federation.
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National
Center for Lesbian Rights; National Council of Jewish Women;
National Family Planning & 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
United States (SIECUS); Unitarian Universalist Association;
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of
Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; WV Citizen Action
Group.
____
AAUW Empowering Women Since 1881,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 170,000
bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association
of University Women (AAUW), I urge you to oppose H.R. 7, a
dangerous limitation on abortion that puts women's health and
rights at risk. H.R. 7 would withhold abortion coverage from
virtually all women in the U.S. and potentially push insurers
into ceasing coverage of abortion care. This bill is a part
of a political strategy that seeks to interfere with women's
personal decision-making around their reproductive health
care.
AAUW supports the right of every woman to access safe,
accessible, affordable, and comprehensive family planning and
reproductive health services. We believe that all women
should be able to make their own decisions with advice and
support from those they trust the most. We know that women
look to doctors, family members, and other trusted
individuals, not politicians, to make important medical
decisions about their health.
H.R. 7 would make abortion restrictions that are often
built into annual appropriations bills permanent. Such an
action would withhold abortion coverage from almost all
women--those who rely on Medicaid, federal insurance plans
and health programs, as well as those who are Peace Corps
Volunteers, Native American women, Washington, D.C.
residents, and many others. In addition, by creating
burdensome regulations for insurers to cover abortion
services, many more women would lose access to the care they
need. When policymakers deny women insurance coverage for
abortion, women are forced to either carry the pregnancy to
term or pay for care out of their own pockets. Consequently,
cutting off access to or placing strict limitations on
abortion can have profoundly harmful effects on public
health, particularly for those who already face significant
barriers to receiving care, such as low-income women,
immigrant women, LGBTQ people, and women of color.
Again, I urge you to oppose H.R. 7, a dangerous limitation
on abortion that puts
[[Page H630]]
women's health and rights at risk. Votes associated with this
legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund
Congressional Voting Record for the 115th Congress. Please do
not hesitate to contact me at 202/785-7720, or Anne
Hedgepeth, Senior Government Relations Manager, if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Maatz,
Vice President of Government
Relations and Advocacy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin my closing by reminding
people that we are about to vote on the rule. The rule defines how we
are going to consider this legislation. This is a closed rule. This is
a Putin rule. This is a rule that allows no opposing viewpoints to be
brought before this Chamber to be debated and voted on. It is
completely closed. On top of that, it didn't go through regular order.
Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, it went through regular
order in the previous Congress. But there are 55 new Members of the
House in this Congress, and I think they have a right to expect regular
order from the leadership of this House when legislation is brought to
the floor. The rule should be rejected because it is closed.
I would urge my colleagues, even those who may be sympathetic to the
underlying legislation to, at some point, stand up to your leadership
and say, ``Enough of this closed process.'' Open this place up a little
bit. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the
world, and yet we do everything but deliberate. At some point, I hope
some of my Republican colleagues will be brave enough to stand with us
who are calling for a more open process.
I also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
I also include in the Record an article from Politico entitled,
``Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low.''
[From Politico, Jan. 17, 2017]
Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low
(By Brianna Ehley)
The U.S. abortion rate dipped to its lowest level on record
in 2014, according to a new study by the Guttmacher
Institute.
The abortion rate dropped 14 percent between 2011 and 2014
to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women, researchers said. During
the same time period, the number of abortions dropped 12
percent to 926,200 in 2014.
Researchers suggested two main reasons for the decline: a
combination of greater access to contraception and less
access to abortion services in states that have enacted new
restrictions.
The number of clinics providing abortions dipped 6 percent
between 2011 and 2014, with the largest declines in access in
the Midwest and the South.
``Abortion restrictions and clinic closures mean that
patients may need to travel greater distances to access
services,'' Rachel Jones, the study's lead author, said in a
statement. ``Some of the abortion rate decline is likely
attributable to women who were prevented from accessing
needed services.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, part of the reason for that is because
women are having more access to good health care. Part of the reason
why that number is getting lower is because of organizations like
Planned Parenthood, which provide clinics and counseling and
contraception to young women so that we can actually avoid more people
being in the situation where they have to confront the issue of
abortion. And yet my colleagues' next salvo is going to be going after
Planned Parenthood. The abortion rate in this country is going down.
The underlying bill is not about making sure that taxpayer money
doesn't go to fund abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment does.
The Affordable Care Act, by the way, makes it clear that no portion
of the premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of
comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplace that
relates to abortion services. That is not what this is about.
This is basically the first attempt to really go after the basic
constitutional right for a woman to be able to choose when it comes to
abortion services. That is what this is about. The leadership of this
House--indeed, the President of the United States--has made it clear
they want to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to put Justices on the
Supreme Court who will repeal that decision. They want to pass
legislation that will do everything to be able to deny women that basic
right. That is what is going on here.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I am asking people to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we can actually debate and vote on this issue
of requiring Presidential candidates and Presidents to release their
tax returns. I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, this President's
refusal to release his tax returns, all these conflicts of interest
that he has, this is a White House on a collision course with
corruption. Donald Trump said he wanted to come to Washington to drain
the swamp, but by not releasing his tax returns, by allowing all these
conflicts of interest to remain, he is bringing the swamp to the White
House. Enough.
Let us vote for transparency here. Let us vote in a way that the
majority of Americans think we ought to do, and that is to require this
President to come clean, to show us what his tax returns are, to show
us what he is hiding, to show us where his investments are, to show us
if there are any dealings with Russia or Putin or whatever.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we
can have that opportunity to be able to debate that issue, because if
you don't vote ``no,'' I can guarantee you that the Committee on Rules
will never make it in order. The Committee on Rules never makes
anything in order that the leadership of this House doesn't put its
rubber stamp on. I think that that is unfortunate. As I said before,
the Committee on Rules is becoming a place where democracy goes to die.
It is about time that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand up
and say, ``Enough. Let's open this place up.''
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am really heartened today, Madam Speaker, to hear so much concern
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about making sure
that patients and individuals have the right to make decisions about
their own health care. I would expect, then, to see support from the
other side of the aisle when we are in a position where we are putting
in place our replacement for ObamaCare. That is one of the main reasons
we are repealing ObamaCare, getting the government out of the business
of telling people what they can and can't have with respect to their
own health care. That is not the issue that we are debating here today,
however, Madam Speaker.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his tireless work
on this issue and for introducing this bipartisan bill. A majority of
Americans across the country share the view that we must continue to
work to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children. As you
have already heard, Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment is responsible
for saving the lives of at least 2 million babies, the most vulnerable
among us.
Codifying a permanent restriction on the use of taxpayer funding for
abortions is long overdue. I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 7
so we can continue to protect and save lives.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to
the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
Act,'' and the underlying bill.
I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the
American people.
A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating
the Rights of Women Act of 2017''!
Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the
Clinton Administration.
We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to
$15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do
not have raise their families in poverty.
A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed
job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every
person looking to make a new start in life.
[[Page H631]]
Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating
irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and
have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when
the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a
year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are
retained in H.R. 7, which would:
1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent
existing federal policies.)
2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service
furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government
or the District.
3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.
4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax
credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified
health plan that includes coverage for abortions.
5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health
insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or
benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.
If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses
with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would
be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance
even more expensive.
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion
coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees
pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.
If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private
health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that
coverage is paid for from private funds.
This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies
dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to
affordable, comprehensive health care.
Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through
employers cover abortion.
If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer Options for private health
insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on
these policy holders would increase significantly.
H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer
their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a
significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would
no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and
deductions for the cost of their health care.
For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover
abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax
Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--
threatening 4 million small businesses.
Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their
comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be
denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.
H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by
restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.
The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used
for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and
health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's
life in danger.
H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even
further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in
the Hyde Amendment.
When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President
issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used
for abortion services.''
This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established
under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the
future of women's reproductive health in this country because it
includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have
never received a hearing or a mark-up.
These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state
health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans
mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the
health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display
that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or
information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the
same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead
consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.
As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance
plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used
for abortion services from all other funds.
In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process
of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover
abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost
of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.
H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this
practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and
identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.
By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R.7 makes it look as 7
though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee,
when in fact it is not.
Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and
possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive
freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of
American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in
Roe V. Wade.
Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of
circumstances.
Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved
viability.
This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the
22-week point.
There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be
able to eat on its own.
H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an
abortion.
Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.
These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life
of the mother.
H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy,
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not 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. Coloyal v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,388-89
(1979).
The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must
be defeated.
I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying
bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 55 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on
[[Page H632]]
Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition ``
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--187
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H633]]
NOT VOTING--12
Blumenauer
Coffman
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Mulvaney
Payne
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Slaughter
Velazquez
Zinke
{time} 1404
Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 183, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 63]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Blumenauer
Coffman
Huffman
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Mulvaney
Payne
Price, Tom (GA)
Rush
Schrader
Slaughter
Veasey
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1411
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mr. COFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call No. 62, and ``Yea'' on
roll call No. 63.
____________________