[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2780-2781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            ABORTION FUNDING

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for about 10 
minutes about the health care debate that continues to be in front of 
us. For much of our country, the health care debate has been a long and 
confusing trail. As details have emerged over the last weeks and 
months, constituents ask me: What is going to happen to my health care? 
Will I be able to continue to see the doctor I have always seen? They 
heard both sides argue the merits and the detriments of various pieces 
of legislation. Citizens are understandably skeptical and perplexed by 
the debate that has transpired.
  One of the things I suggest that is very clear, one situation that is 
clear as a matter of policy and conscience is that Americans are 
against the Federal funding of abortion, whether they support or oppose 
the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate-passed health care bill allows 
taxpayer funds to fund abortion.
  The current Senate language says people who receive a new government 
subsidy could enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. Nothing 
would stop them from doing that.
  Some say: Yes, but States could opt out. What I point out is that in 
those States that opt out, the taxpayers would still see their tax 
dollars funding elective abortions in other States.

[[Page 2781]]

  Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management can provide access 
to two multistate plans in each State, and only one of them would 
exclude abortions. OPM's current health care program, the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program, now prohibits any plans--any plans--
that cover elective abortion. For the first time, a federally funded 
and managed health care plan will cover elective abortions.
  Those who have looked at this language have said very clearly that it 
is woefully inadequate. I say that. It does not apply a decades-old 
policy--an agreement really--that was reached many years ago that was 
embodied in the Hyde amendment. The Hyde language bars Federal funding 
for abortion except in the cases of rape and incest or where the life 
of the mother is at stake. The public has clearly rejected advancing 
the abortion agenda under the guise of health care reform.
  Yet as we have seen the language of the Senate bill proceed, it seems 
very clear my colleagues are refusing to listen. They seem bent on 
forcing this very unpopular bill upon us via a rather arcane process 
called reconciliation.
  The important point to be made today is this: Reconciliation will not 
allow us to fix the egregious abortion language.
  This is not the first time I have come to the floor to speak about 
this issue. Last November, I came here to urge pro-life Senators to 
vote no on cloture if they wanted any chance to address the Federal 
funding of abortion in the Senate bill. I said then that if the 
language was not fixed before the debate began, there would be no way 
to fix it. We would not have any leverage to fix it.
  I wish I were here on the floor today to say that I was wrong about 
that. Unfortunately, though, I was not wrong. Unfortunately, when an 
amendment was offered to match the Stupak language in the House bill 
with the Senate bill, only 45 Senators supported it.
  The sad reality is that this Senate, as a matter of the majority, is 
not a pro-life body. There are not 60 Senators who are willing to vote 
for that.
  Back in November, some of my colleagues disagreed with my assessment. 
There was a big debate. They said: Whoa, wait a second. We can fix this 
provision via an amendment, they said. But they were wrong. When the 
dust settled, we were left with a Senate bill that allows Federal 
funding of abortion.
  The House is now being asked to vote on the Senate bill. You see, 
that is going to be the pathway: vote on the Senate bill so any fix on 
other provisions can come through a reconciliation sidecar.
  According to the National Right to Life committee, the Senate bill 
is--and I am quoting their language--``the most pro-abortion single 
piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote 
since Roe v. Wade.''
  They go on to warn:

       Any House Member who votes for the Senate health bill is 
     casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote.

  There is talk that Democratic leaders might try to appease pro-life 
House Members by promising to change the Senate bill through a separate 
bill or the reconciliation sidecar I mentioned.
  I urge pro-life supporters and pro-life House Members to think 
through this very carefully. Don't be fooled. Don't be lulled into 
thinking there are 60 votes in the Senate that will somehow rescue this 
situation. There are not. You do not have to take my word for it. It is 
in black and white in the Congressional Record. It is the same 
situation we faced in November.
  The Senate specifically rejected the amendment that would have 
blocked Federal funding for abortion. Nothing--nothing--has changed to 
suggest the Senate would have anywhere near 60 votes to support it now.
  It was recently reported that some in the pro-life community support 
adding pro-life language in the reconciliation sidecar or maybe in a 
separate bill with the hope and the promise that somehow the Senate 
will swoop in and waive the rules and keep that language there. Let me 
be abundantly clear. As much as I might want that to happen, it will 
not happen here, as demonstrated by November's vote.
  If the Senate rejects it again, the language in the Senate bill would 
become law. Current law would be reversed, and taxpayer dollars would, 
in fact, fund abortions.
  There was recently a column in the Washington Post. It issued a 
warning to pro-life Democrats to be wary of this strategy. I am quoting 
again:

       The only way they can ensure that the abortion language and 
     other provisions they oppose are eliminated is to reject 
     reconciliation entirely--and demand that the House and Senate 
     start over with clean legislation.

  I come to the Senate floor again to encourage my pro-life colleagues 
in the House to recognize the reality in the Senate. I tell them what 
they know already, and that is that many innocent lives are depending 
on their courage.
  This issue should not be an issue of political gamesmanship, 
especially when the game is so rigged against pro-lifers. This is an 
issue of conscience. On this one, you are pro-life or you are not.
  Agreeing to a strategy that is guaranteed to fail, one that has 
failed already in this health care debate in November, in my judgment, 
is not leadership at all. It is surrendering your values.
  I leave the floor today, and I pray that my House colleagues will 
have the wisdom to understand this in their decisionmaking.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________