[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2123-2138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                                 H.R. 7

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``No 
     Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full 
     Disclosure Act of 2014''.

[[Page 2124]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

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

          TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

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

            TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS.

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

           ``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

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

     ``Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions

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

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

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 309. Application to District of Columbia

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

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CHAPTERS.

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

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

          TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

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

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

[[Page 2125]]

     and the amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to plan 
     years beginning after such date.

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

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

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


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1515

  The bill before us would simply codify the Hyde amendment language so 
it applies across the Federal Government.
  Consumers should also have the right to know whether the plans they 
are selecting on an exchange include abortion coverage. While the ACA 
included some notification provisions, many of our constituents are 
simply unable to find out whether a plan is paying for abortions. In 
fact, this inability to find out whether exchange plans provide 
abortion coverage seems to extend to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services.
  In October of last year, Secretary Sebelius committed in testimony 
before the Energy and Commerce Committee to provide the Congress and 
the American people a full list of exchange plans providing abortion 
coverage. She was asked again to provide this list in December. Yet we 
are still waiting as the days tick by. We do not have this list.
  The self-appointed most transparent administration in history is 
simply either unwilling or unable to comply with this request. This is 
why we have added provisions of the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure 
Act. This would ensure Americans have the right to know whether plans 
on the exchange are providing abortion coverage. This bill is about 
protecting taxpayer dollars and protecting life. It also ensures we 
have at least some transparency under the President's health care law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 7.
  H.R. 7 is not based on fact. The Affordable Care Act does not 
secretly funnel taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, and it is not based 
on the real experiences of American women and families. They want to 
make their own personal health care decisions in consultation with 
their doctors and their spiritual advisors, not with their Congressmen.
  Instead, this bill would squarely put the government, namely the IRS, 
in the exam room by effectively raising the taxes of those who choose 
an insurance plan that happens to cover abortion services. That 
includes hardworking men, women, and families who would be penalized, 
and it would burden small businesses, making each one second-guess its 
current insurance plan. It would make them change their coverage if 
they want to keep their health insurance coverage affordable. Simply 
put, H.R. 7 would dictate what individuals can do with their own 
private dollars.
  Instead of this cynical attack on women's personal decisionmaking, we 
should be empowering our Nation's families by focusing on the economy, 
by strengthening the middle class, and by helping parents provide the 
best for their kids. It is really time to stop reverting back to the 
culture wars and to start trusting our Nation's women, our Nation's 
families and small businesses to make their own personal health care 
decisions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, we were told over and over again: if 
you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. We all found out 
that that wasn't true. I will never forget on the day that ObamaCare 
passed--I was here in this Chamber--we were promised by the President 
of the United States that, not only would the taxpayers of this country 
not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, but that abortion 
would not be a part of ObamaCare. We know today that isn't true. 
Abortion is a part of ObamaCare.
  What is worse is that no matter how anyone feels about that issue 
there is pretty strong agreement that no one should be forced to 
violate one's conscience and pay for other people's abortions and be 
forced to do that, but that is the way it is. H.R. 7 makes President 
Obama's promise stand up and ring true, and it is this: that no 
taxpayer-funded money ever goes to pay for someone else's abortion.
  Couldn't we unite on this principle? This is important.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, existing law very clearly states no taxpayers' money 
can fund abortions--that is already the law--with the exception of 
rape, incest, or to save a woman's life. The Republicans are coming in 
and saying we have got to make sure that no taxpayer's money is going 
to be used to pay for any insurance that might provide abortions.

[[Page 2126]]

  The law--the Affordable Care Act--provides that, if you get an 
insurance policy on the exchange, you can choose a policy that does not 
provide abortion coverage, but if you choose a policy that has abortion 
coverage, that portion of the policy must be paid by the purchaser, not 
the government.
  So this is, in fact, like all we do around here, which is propaganda. 
It is politics. The Republicans try to make people believe that 
taxpayers' dollars are being used to pay for abortions. It is not true. 
This bill is bad in substance. It is an unfortunate bill that tries to 
interfere with the ability of people to buy with their own money a 
policy that may cover abortion services, which is a legal medical 
service.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who is a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my distinguished colleague.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am here 
today for those who cannot speak for themselves.
  The premise of this legislation is nothing new. It simply continues 
the longstanding prohibition of using taxpayer dollars to pay for 
abortions. Regardless of whether you are pro-life or not, most 
Americans recognize that it is unfair to force every American in this 
country to subsidize abortion. This is, however, exactly what ObamaCare 
does. It has allowed taxpayer subsidies for health care plans that 
cover elective abortions. H.R. 7 is as much about protecting the 
taxpayer as it is about protecting the unborn.
  I urge my colleagues to make the fair choice and to vote ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the ranking 
member of the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7. 
This legislation does nothing but impede women's access to health care 
in this country and turns the clock back on reproductive rights by 38 
years.
  The bill's sponsors claim it will prevent taxpayer dollars from 
paying for abortions. However, we already know that Federal funds do 
not go to abortions except in the limited cases of rape, incest, or to 
save the mother's life. This bill does not simply codify the Hyde 
amendment. That is bogus. What this bill does is prohibit millions of 
American families from using their own money to buy health plans that 
include abortion coverage.
  Madam Speaker, spending time attacking women's health shows just how 
far out of touch Republicans in Washington are. Instead of focusing on 
the economy and job creation, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would rather focus on legislation that puts access to 
reproductive health care in danger and undermines a woman's right to 
choose.
  On December 28, unemployment insurance expired for Americans still 
struggling to find work. Meanwhile, Democrats have a bill that would 
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, generating economic activity, 
creating jobs, and growing the middle class. These should be the 
priorities of the House of Representatives, not this phony bill before 
us. This legislation is an unprecedented, radical assault on women's 
health care. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who has been such an advocate on our life 
issues.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard 
work on this very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I am humbled to join my pro-life colleagues here on 
the House floor and, more importantly, the millions of pro-life 
Americans across the country.
  Although this debate is often clouded by empty euphemisms like 
``choice,'' we cannot forget the human element at the heart of this 
issue. This isn't about abstract concepts. This is about babies, the 
most vulnerable members of our society. At the same time, we must show 
compassion and offer help to those struggling through what seems like 
an impossible circumstance; and, as civilized people, we ought to 
prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing the senseless destruction of 
innocent lives once and for all. After all, we are a Nation founded to 
protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, we have an 
opportunity to do exactly that with commonsense legislation. Millions 
of pro-life Americans don't want their tax dollars used to subsidize 
abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a real champion 
for women's issues.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, this so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion Act'' has got to be the most deceptively named bill of this 
Congress.
  Here are the facts:
  There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act 
does not change that. Let me say that again. There is no taxpayer 
funding for abortion. The Affordable Care Act does not change that.
  The ACA contains a hard-fought compromise that guarantees that the 
tax credits made available through the exchanges are segregated out for 
plans that cover certain women's health benefits. This bill is an 
attempt to undo that compromise. It effectively bans the coverage of 
important women's health services in the new health insurance 
exchanges. It restricts the way that women can use their own private 
dollars to purchase private insurance. It says small businesses cannot 
get tax credits if they choose to use their private dollars to purchase 
private insurance that covers important women's benefits.
  It goes far, far beyond the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer 
funding for most abortions in the annual appropriations bills. It also, 
for the first time, puts the Hyde amendment into law, and it says women 
in the District of Columbia will not have the same right to access 
health services as women in other States throughout this country.
  This bill would not only restrict comprehensive health care for 
women; it would also undermine a woman's right to make her own health 
care decisions under her insurance policy with her own money. Vote 
``no.''
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for her leadership 
on this particular issue.
  For far too long, Madam Speaker, I was silent on this particular 
issue. Some 22 years ago, as we were expecting our first child--my wife 
was pregnant--I began to talk to her about this particular thing. There 
my son was kicking in his mother's womb, and as we started to see this, 
I realized very profoundly that not only was it life but that it 
responded. My son was responding to my voice and to my touch, and as we 
saw that, I realized that I had been silent for far too long.
  Regardless of where you are on this particular issue, we must say 
something today--the many of us who find this just appalling that it is 
even legal today--in allowing taxpayer dollars to be spent. This is 
something on which we must stand together. So, for those who can't 
speak for themselves, I stand here today, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this particular legislation.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle seem to be absolutely obsessed with taking away a woman's right 
to make her own personal health decisions with her own money.
  Today, we could be extending unemployment benefits to 1.6 million 
Americans. Instead, we are considering legislation that would 
discriminate against a woman's right with her own money

[[Page 2127]]

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

       Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting 
     any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing 
     separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that 
     includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for 
     entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by 
     Federal law.

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

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

  So, Madam Speaker, may I lay the fears aside of my colleagues. This 
is an issue that 60 percent of the American people agree with us on. It 
is an action that they think is important to take; that it is important 
for taxpayers to have the assurance from their government that we are 
not going to have taxpayer funds used for abortion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand before the House 
today in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I 
supported this legislation last Congress because the message I have 
consistently received from my constituents is that they do not want 
their taxpayers dollars funding abortions. Period.
  It is time to put this issue to rest once and for all. The majority 
of Americans, regardless of where they stand on the larger issue, do 
not want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions, but for too long, 
we have had a patchwork of provisions when it comes to Federal funding, 
which has created potential loopholes and confusion. H.R. 7 solidifies 
the longstanding provisions of the Hyde amendment, which are especially 
needed when it comes to the Affordable Health Care Act.
  Madam Speaker, I don't have time to stand here and list all of the 
problems with the President's health care law, but one of these 
problems can be fixed through the passage of this bipartisan bill, 
which simply states that taxpayer dollars will not pay for abortions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 2128]]

  When I go home to talk to my constituents back home in Queens and the 
portions of the Bronx that I represent, there are a lot of issues that 
they bring up to me. They want to see unemployment insurance restored. 
They want to see jobs created. They want to see our economy 
strengthened. They want to see investments in infrastructure and 
building our communities.
  But not once has anyone ever said, Forget all about that. They have 
never said to me, Please raise my taxes if Uncle Sam objects to the 
health care plan I have picked for me, my family, or my business.
  Yes, that's exactly what this bill does. It raises taxes on 
individuals, families, and small businesses.
  I offered an amendment that would block this bill from taking effect 
if it would raise taxes, but the Republican majority, with yet another 
closed rule, refused to make that amendment in order. Why?
  Because they knew that if that amendment were to become a part of 
this bill, it would kill this bill. Because no matter how you slice it, 
this Republican bill will raise taxes on hardworking Americans. Small 
businesses will pay more taxes because if their employee health plan 
covers abortion or reproductive care, the business will be denied the 
small business tax credit. No one denies that.
  Families will pay more in taxes when they lose any tax credits they 
received to purchase a health insurance plan if the plan that works 
best for them happens to include abortion coverage. That is right. 
Families will have to give up on choosing their own plan.
  Stripping these health care tax credits will have the same effect as 
if we denied or stripped out similar tax credits like the child tax 
credit or the higher education tax credit.
  If this isn't a tax increase, I don't know what is.
  This bill interferes with personal choice and decisions.
  I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues claim to support 
ensuring Americans can pick a private health plan that suits their 
individual needs until the plan they pick covers legal services they 
find personally objectionable. I find it ironic that my Republican 
colleagues oppose every suggested tax increase out there until it is 
one that abnegates their social agenda.
  There is no question this is a serious issue and it deserves serious 
consideration. Yet on an issue as important as access to comprehensive 
health care coverage--and with such severe tax implications--it is 
outrageous that this bill was not first considered by the Ways and 
Means Committee. The reason for that is Republicans are rushing this 
new bill forward. Not because they are looking to make good policy, but 
because they are looking to make good political friends--good political 
friends who support a very narrow political agenda.
  I just wish the real issues that we need to be working on like 
extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans would get as 
much attention as all these made-up issues.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

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

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

  The executive order that was issued in March of 2010 said, and I 
quote, that the Affordable Care Act ``maintains current Hyde amendment 
restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions 
to newly created health insurance exchanges.''
  Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. It is absolutely not true. As 
my colleagues know, the Hyde amendment has two parts. It prohibits 
direct funding for abortion, and it bans funding to any insurance 
coverage, any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in the 
cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  Earlier speakers have said not a penny will go to pay for abortion. 
Yet under the Affordable Care Act, massive amounts of public funds--
what are they if they are not public? They are public funds coming out 
of the U.S. Treasury in the forms of tax credits. That is the word 
used.
  $796 billion in direct spending, over 10 years, according to CBO, 
will pay for insurance plans, many, perhaps most of which will include 
elective abortions, abortion on demand.
  Madam Speaker, that massively violates the Hyde amendment. You can't 
have it both ways. You can't say you are for the Hyde amendment and you 
are comporting with the Hyde amendment when you violate it in such a 
way.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that there are many States 
where pro-life individuals and constituents will have no opportunity to 
buy a plan that is pro-life on the exchanges. That includes Connecticut 
and Rhode Island. Every plan is abortion-on-demand, so their premium 
dollars, your tax dollars and mine, will be combining to buy plans that 
provide for abortion-on-demand.
  In 2014, Madam Speaker, we have learned so much about the magnificent 
life of an unborn child. Increasingly, we have also learned about the 
deleterious effects that abortions have on women, psychologically, the 
children born subsequently to them and, of course, to other aspects of 
their physical health.
  Please support H.R. 7.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time we have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Kansas has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, when you are not limited by the facts, 
you can say almost anything out on this floor; and we are hearing that 
today because, in the grand tradition of the anti-choice terminology, 
the title of this bill is an absolute farce.
  Taxpayers do not currently fund abortions, and this legislation would 
do nothing more than make it difficult for private businesses to 
provide adequate health care for their workers, restrict how our 
Nation's Capital conducts its affairs, and generally block poor women 
from accessing safe and legal abortions.
  In 1963, I was an intern in Buffalo, New York, before the Hyde 
amendment, before all the business and abortions were illegal. I stood 
there on the general medicine ward with two women, one with eight 
children, one with 12 children, who had gotten septic

[[Page 2129]]

abortions done in a back alley, and they died.
  They left eight and 12 children in that situation. Now, they did that 
because they didn't have access to clean abortions. They had made a 
choice. They can make a choice.
  If we say women can't make a choice, that is very simple. We will 
just tell women what to do, which is really what this bill is all 
about.
  The Republicans want to tell women what to do. Stay out of our lives, 
get the government out of our lives. No, in every area except women's 
health.
  Now, the truth of the matter is not tax credits or health coverage. 
The heart of this debate is a simple question about does women's health 
count?
  Do women deserve comprehensive health care?
  Or are they some kind of submissive person who hangs around the house 
and we tell them what to do?
  Are their health care needs real?
  And does 51 percent of our population deserve control over their own 
health decisions?
  Or are they special exceptions who need to be taken care of because 
they can't decide for themselves?
  Do they have a right to make health decisions for themselves?
  Does Congress have a right to stigmatize a safe, legal procedure?
  Imagine if we were standing up here debating whether or not private 
business would be allowed to help employees get coverage for prostate 
cancer or erectile dysfunction drugs or vasectomies. Suppose we were to 
pass a law and say you can't pay for that kind of stuff?
  Imagine if we told men that they would lose their deserved tax 
credits in the exchange if they purchased insurance that covered their 
health needs as they decide them?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Women's health care is health care. It is not 
Congress' job to stigmatize legal medical procedures and punish women 
who use them. It is also not Congress' job to tell Washington, D.C., 
what to do or to stop people from having their options.
  This bill is insulting to women, and the Republicans are asking for 
it in the next election. If anybody votes for you, it is because they 
haven't paid attention to what you are doing out here today. You are 
insulting every woman in this country. She can't make her own decision 
about her health care.
  I urge you to vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, this is appalling that we 
are even at this point in talking about this providing health care for 
women. I am really shocked. If we are not providing the best possible 
medical help for expectant mothers and their unborn child, that is not 
the issue.
  This country has always been the champion of life around the world, 
protecting human rights. We have always showed up at every single 
encounter, whenever people were being treated in a way that we thought 
was not right.
  We worry about Syria and the fact that they are losing their 
citizens, that Assad is killing their citizens. Yet, since 1973, we 
have aborted 56 million unborn children, 56 million unborn children.
  And today we are having a discussion on H.R. 7, where the only thing 
the American taxpayers are saying, we know, by law, a woman can make 
that choice, but we also know that taxpayers don't want to fund it.
  It is appalling that we have to have this type of a discussion in the 
United States of America when you know how we feel in our hearts and in 
our souls. You know how people feel about this.
  I want you to think about those 56 million unborn children who could 
have made a huge difference in this world. It is absolutely appalling 
to sit in this great room where so many great debates over the 
protection of human rights and freedom and liberty have taken placer 
and to be having this discussion.
  This has nothing to do with us cutting back on women's health care. 
It has to do with taxpayers not wanting to fund an abortion. This is 
what we are talking about.
  Please--and as the gentleman just said--is it about the next 
election? Really?
  Have we reduced ourselves to only winning elections and not winning 
on behalf of people's rights?
  These are human rights. I appreciate the time to come to speak.
  Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you, this is one of the most 
disturbing things that we face in the country today, and I want our 
people to think about this: 56 million children have been aborted.
  If we can't wake up and smell the roses on this, then shame on us.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, there is no tax money being used for 
abortions. That has been true since Henry Hyde served here with us.
  What this bill does is not address that issue. It really is intended 
to eliminate abortion coverage in private insurance plans.
  Our witness, Professor Wood, testified in the Judiciary Committee 
that eliminating the tax benefit, essentially raising taxes if a small 
business offers a broad insurance plan that includes abortion, will 
result in dropping that portion of the coverage. So this is really an 
extreme measure.
  I understand that not everyone believes that women should make this 
choice. If you are opposed to abortion, don't have an abortion. But 
don't put the Federal Government in charge of the decisions that are 
properly and legally made by women, along with their husbands and 
families.
  This is an extreme agenda. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, throughout history, there has 
often been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting the 
innocent lives of those who, through no fault of their own, find 
themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity.
  It encourages me greatly that in nearly all of those cases the 
collective conscience was finally moved in favor of the victims. The 
same thing is beginning to happen in this debate related to innocent, 
unborn children.
  No matter how the left has tried to obscure the true issue, we are 
finally beginning to ask ourselves the real question: Does abortion 
take the life of a child?
  And we are finally beginning to realize, as a human family, Madam 
Speaker, that it does. Ultrasound technology demonstrates to all 
reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity 
of what is being done to them.
  And we are finally beginning to realize, as Americans, that 56 
million lost little lives and their blood staining the foundations of 
this Nation is enough.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, if the 
gentlelady has any additional speakers before she closes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Kansas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I don't see any additional speakers, so 
we will be prepared to close.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
  The gentlelady from Kansas, my good friend, who I respect greatly, 
said the overall tax effect is negligible. I would ask, negligible to 
whom?
  If you are that person who can't get a needed tax credit, it is not 
negligible to you. It is very real.
  Part of what is so troubling about this bill is it is not only how 
much further it goes than current existing law, but how much further 
this kind of thinking could go.
  What other restrictions on medical procedures are next, as my friend 
from Washington said? If your procedure involves stem cells, prenatal 
care for teen mothers?

[[Page 2130]]

  Could hospitals lose funding for training doctors in necessary 
procedures that this majority may deem troubling?
  The question is, where does it end?
  How many other ways can the majority use our laws to punish 
hardworking Americans?

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page 2131]]

taxpayer funds from going towards abortions.
  Today the House will vote on a bill that I am proud to cosponsor and 
support, H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill 
does exactly what the name implies: it permanently ensures that no 
taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions or abortion coverage. This 
bill codifies the Hyde amendment as well as addresses taxpayer funding 
that, unfortunately, the Hyde amendment does not cover.
  For example, ObamaCare expressly allows funding for plans that 
include abortions through taxpayer subsidies. During the health care 
debate, the President assured the American people that no Federal 
dollars would be used to fund abortions under ObamaCare. Yet this was 
just one more in a long line of inaccurate statements on ObamaCare by 
the President and his administration.
  The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act not only prevents taxpayer 
funding for abortion under ObamaCare, but it also requires transparency 
to ensure consumers are fully informed about which plans on the 
exchanges contain abortion coverage and surcharges.
  Madam Speaker, throughout my life, I have worked hard to draw 
attention to the pro-life movement. I do it with love and compassion. I 
live for the day when abortion is not just illegal, but it is 
unthinkable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, today we consider H.R. 7, the misleadingly 
named No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill. Congress, unfortunately, 
already prohibits Federal funding of abortion. This bill does not 
simply codify existing law. Rather, it modifies and extends current 
funding restrictions in the Hyde amendment and, for the first time 
ever, uses the Tax Code to penalize the use of private funds to 
purchase insurance that covers abortion. It denies small businesses the 
tax credits they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if they 
offer their employees health insurance, if that health insurance covers 
abortion. It similarly denies income-eligible women and families the 
tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if 
they use their own money to purchase insurance, if that insurance 
covers abortion.
  The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a 
completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this 
context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is 
Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches, synagogues, and 
religious-affiliated schools not be considered Federal funding in 
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? We should 
all be very careful about establishing this new principle.
  H.R. 7 is not a codification of existing law, nor is it just another 
attempt to enact the approach taken in the Stupak-Pitts amendment to 
the House-passed Affordable Care Act. H.R. 7 is a radical departure 
from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage; 
and it is not justifiable, nor is it necessary, unfortunately, to 
prevent Federal funding of abortion.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Today the House will consider H.R. 7--a bill that embraces the 
completely fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent 
federal funding of abortion services.
  Congress already prohibits federal funding of abortion and has done 
so for more than thirty years. Many of us disagree with that decision. 
But regardless, there is no need for this bill, at least not to prevent 
federal funding of abortion.
  Nor is the bill simply an effort to codify existing law. H.R. 7 
modifies and extends current funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment 
that are limited in time and scope, without any effort to determine how 
such a sweeping and permanent expansion would impact American women and 
their families.
  If this were all, that would be reason enough to oppose it, but H.R. 
7 actually goes much further. For the first time ever, anti-choice 
lawmakers are using the Federal tax code to penalize the purchase of 
insurance that covers abortion in certain circumstances. These 
penalties would apply when women and businesses use their own money--
let me repeat that, their own money, not Federal funds--to purchase 
insurance that covers abortion.
  In particular, H.R. 7 penalizes income-eligible women by denying them 
the tax credits that they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act 
if they use their own money to purchase insurance that covers abortion. 
It similarly denies small businesses the tax credits that they are 
entitled to under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance they offer 
their employees includes abortion coverage.
  The claim here is that a tax credit equals Federal funding. This is a 
completely new principle, asserted for the first and only time in this 
context. If we adopt this new theory--that granting tax relief is 
Federal funding--then how can tax relief for churches not be considered 
Federal funding in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First 
Amendment? I am sure that many churches, synagogues, other houses of 
worship, and religiously-affiliated schools would be alarmed to 
discover this.
  We all should be very careful about establishing this new principle.
  Some additional tax penalties were in the bill when it was considered 
by the House Judiciary Committee. Those were removed and we now have 
new provisions that have never been considered by any Committee.
  We have no idea who made these changes or why they were made. But 
they demonstrate the fiction and hypocrisy that underlies this bill.
  This bill, unlike the version considered in the Judiciary Committee, 
no longer denies women who pay for abortion out-of-pocket the ability 
to claim those expenses as deductible medical expenses. And this 
version no longer taxes women when they use money they have set aside 
in flexible savings accounts or health savings accounts for abortion 
services. We welcome the removal of those tax penalty provisions, but 
these changes are not nearly enough.
  This version, unlike the bill considered by House Judiciary, also 
adds a notice requirement that requires insurance companies to provide 
a false notice to policyholders that they will be forced to pay a so-
called ``abortion surcharge'' if they are in a plan that covers 
abortion.
  Existing law already requires plans to disclose to consumers whether 
a policy includes abortion. No further notice is necessary. And there 
is no surcharge for this coverage, as the new notice provision falsely 
suggests. The Affordable Care Act requires participating insurance 
plans to segregate monies for abortion services from all other funds, a 
measure my anti-choice colleagues insisted was necessary to prevent 
Federal funding of abortion. The segregation of a private dollar 
contribution of at least $1 a month is not a surcharge at all but 
merely a segregation of the premium. The new notice provision requires 
insurance companies to mislead consumers into mistakenly believing that 
they are paying a separate, additional charge for coverage of abortion 
and that they would pay a lesser premium for insurance that does not 
cover abortion.
  The harms caused by this bill are compounded by the fact that we are 
being forced to consider it under a closed rule, with no opportunity 
for amendment.
  The potential impact of this bill on the rights of individuals to 
spend their own funds to purchase comprehensive insurance that cover 
all of their health care needs (including the potential of an unplanned 
pregnancy) is significant. Members should have been given the chance to 
consider amendments and debate the impact of this bill--and, in 
particular, its untested tax provisions--before taking an up or down 
vote on the whole package. This bill is too important, the impact on 
the rights of all Americans to spend their own money in ways see fit 
too great, simply to close the door to any debate.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership on this, and I thank the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for sponsoring this bill.
  Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, I think we can all agree on 
this: it is wrong to spend hard-earned tax dollars to pay for 
abortions. Yet that is the policy of this administration through 
ObamaCare and what today's bill reverses. This commonsense provision 
ensures tax dollars are used wisely and government policy does not 
violate Americans' basic rights.
  H.R. 7 brings a stop to government-subsidized abortion created 
through

[[Page 2132]]

ObamaCare, creates transparency by ensuring citizens have the 
information they need regarding their insurance policy and whether it 
pays for abortion or not, and, ultimately, lessens the number of lives 
ended through abortion. This legislation is important for the future of 
our country and forces our government to no longer be complicit in 
taking the lives of millions of innocent babies.
  We now live in a country that is trending pro-life, and a CNN poll 
shows that 61 percent of respondents oppose public funding for 
abortion. Forcing Americans to pay for services that they find morally 
unconscionable is wrong.
  The pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute demonstrates that when tax 
dollars are used, abortions increase by 25 percent. Conversely, by 
ensuring tax dollars are not used for abortions, we can not only save 
hard-earned tax dollars, but we can save lives, and that is a policy we 
can all live with.
  I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 7.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished Judiciary 
Committee member.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  H.R. 7 is a dangerous bill, and it is an attack on women's health, 
particularly women who get subsidies based on their ability to purchase 
insurance under ObamaCare. This bill is also emblematic of a Republican 
Party that is utterly and completely out of touch with Americans.

                              {time}  1615

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

[[Page 2133]]

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

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

       Advocates for Youth; American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American 
     Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public 
     Health Association; American Society for Reproductive 
     Medicine; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; 
     Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); 
     Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice; Center 
     for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA.
       Feminist Majority; Guttmacher Institute; Hadassah, The 
     Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc; Jewish Women 
     International; Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs; 
     Methodist Federation for Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice 
     America; National Abortion Federation; National Asian Pacific 
     American Women's Forum (NAPAWF); National Center for Lesbian 
     Rights; National Council of Jewish Women; National Family 
     Planning and Reproductive Health Association; National Health 
     Law Program; National Latina Institute for Reproductive 
     Health.
       National Organization for Women; National Partnership for 
     Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; National 
     Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Physicians 
     for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America; Population Connection Action Fund; Population 
     Institute; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We 
     Need; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

[[Page 2134]]

       Religious Institute; Reproductive Health Technologies 
     Project; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the 
     U.S. (SIECUS); South Carolina Small Business Chamber of 
     Commerce; Third Way; Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

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

[[Page 2135]]

  The founding fathers strongly believed that human beings are created 
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 
among which is the right to life, and therefore the right to life of 
each human being should be preserved and protected by every human being 
in the society and by the society as a whole. It is our duty as Members 
of Congress to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7--the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Our Founding Fathers, when writing the Declaration of Independence, 
listed three rights that this Congress has an obligation to protect, 
the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  I believe strongly that life begins at conception and thus it's our 
obligation to protect the right to life, especially for the most 
defenseless.
  It's unconscionable to me that some would even consider using Federal 
dollars to perform these heinous acts against the unborn. 
Unfortunately, there are some who would like this practice to continue 
even though a majority of Americans don't believe that taxpayer funds 
should be used to abort a baby.
  The bill that we're debating today prohibits taxpayer-funded 
abortions but leaves exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the 
mother. This legislation also holds the President's health care law to 
the same standard by making sure those receiving assistance to 
participate in the newly formed health care exchanges aren't able to 
receive abortion on demand.
  Like many parents, I will never forget when I first heard my child's 
heart beat. It was a sign of a healthy, living child of God. It was a 
defining moment for me as a father knowing that my wife and I were 
bringing and responsible for another human being.
  I strongly urge the House to pass this bill because we cannot and 
shouldn't accept abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Longstanding federal policy explicitly prohibits the use of federal 
funds for abortions, except for certain narrow circumstances of rape, 
incest, or severe health complications that threaten the life of the 
mother. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) maintains this ban and a federal 
appeals court confirmed that no federal dollars may be used to pay for 
abortion services under the law.
  Far more sweeping in scope than the title implies, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act goes well beyond codifying the Hyde amendment 
and protecting public funds. This bill intrudes on women's reproductive 
autonomy and access to health care, manipulates the tax code to put 
additional financial burdens on many women and small businesses, and 
unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices available to 
consumers today.
  The House of Representatives should be spending our time working to 
improve access to health care for all Americans, instead of deceptive 
legislation that interferes with a woman's ability to make personal, 
private medical decisions.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
7, an unnecessary and intrusive bill that represents a short-sighted 
attack on the rights of women and families, and undermines access to 
insurance that covers comprehensive women's health care.
  H.R. 7 would diminish meaningful access to healthcare for millions of 
lower and middle income families by denying them tax credits if the 
insurance plan they choose through the Health Insurance Marketplaces 
includes coverage for abortion services. Removing these tax breaks for 
the most vulnerable members of our society is not only dangerous, it is 
heartless, and it will return a constitutionally-protected medical 
procedure to its dark back-alley days. If enacted, this change will 
likely lead insurers to remove coverage for abortion services from all 
plans offered in the marketplaces, thus denying access to this coverage 
for women who wish to purchase such coverage out of their own pockets. 
Rather than offering real solutions to the problems our nation faces, 
the other side of the aisle only offers a return to the fights over 
social issues of the past.
  Republicans claim that H.R. 7 merely codifies the Hyde Amendment, a 
provision prohibiting the use of federal funds for most abortion 
services, but Title I of the bill actually includes numerous vague 
provisions that may in some cases modify and expand the funding 
restrictions relating to abortion currently included in annual 
appropriations bills. Besides, the Hyde Amendment has been passed every 
single year for nearly forty years--we already have a law prohibiting 
the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, we don't need another 
one.
  This legislation threatens women's health by denying access to 
comprehensive women's health care that includes abortion. That is why I 
vehemently oppose H.R. 7.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill specifically prohibits the 
expenditure of Federal funds for any abortion, and clarifies that no 
federal funds can be used for any health benefits coverage that 
includes coverage for abortions. While I believe that the Stupak 
amendment to the health care reform legislation codified the Hyde 
amendment, I believe that this bill provides extra measures to ensure 
Federal funds are not used for abortion.
  As a society, I believe that we have a responsibility to safeguard 
the lives of those who are unable to protect themselves. H.R. 7 takes 
important steps to limiting the instances where the rights of the 
unborn are violated. This bill ensures that no public funding is used 
to pay for health care plans that include abortion coverage, and it 
restricts tax credits from applying to health care plans that include 
abortion coverage in its benefits package.
  The bill does make important exemptions to these prohibitions that 
protect the health of mothers. The prohibitions will not apply to 
pregnancies that result from rape or incest or in instances where a 
mother's life is in danger. I believe that these exemptions provide a 
good balance in ensuring human life is respected.
  As a strong and consistent prolife supporter, I believe that our 
government has an obligation to protect the lives of our country's most 
vulnerable citizens. I strongly support H.R. 7 and I urge my colleagues 
to pass this bill.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 7, a Republican bill intended only to exacerbate divisions between 
Americans and to undermine the rights of American women to access 
health care.
  H.R. 7 would effectively deny women access to health insurance 
coverage that includes abortion, by taking away important tax benefits 
such as certain tax deductions and premium tax credits used to help pay 
for the cost of health insurance coverage. This bill is so misguided 
and invasive that it does not even allow for coverage when a woman's 
health is in danger.
  Despite the Republicans' ``pro-business'' stance, this bill would 
also limit small businesses' ability to claim existing health care 
deductions or claim the Small Business Health Tax Credit for those 
businesses that offer their employees comprehensive health insurance 
that includes abortion.
  Limiting access to these tax deductions and tax credits not only 
adversely impacts the employees and the small businesses, but also 
harms the American economy. After all, both Democrats and Republicans 
agree that small businesses are the engines of our economy.
  Quite simply, H.R. 7 intrudes upon the relationship between a woman 
and her doctor by limiting a woman's ability to access health insurance 
coverage that includes coverage of abortion and in doing threatens a 
woman's health. The notion that women are incapable of rational 
decision regarding their own bodies and their own health does not have 
any place in the Twenty-First Century.
  So far this year, we have not even had an opportunity to vote on the 
extension of unemployment benefits, nor have we had the opportunity to 
vote on any meaningful jobs bill. Instead, I am ashamed to say that we 
waste our time on bills such as H.R. 7 that politicizes women's access 
to health care and takes our focus off what should be our primary 
goal--creating Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the 
deceivingly titled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Let's be 
clear, federal policy--including the Affordable Care Act--already 
prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, except in the 
cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  The bill on the floor today would dramatically restrict the freedom 
of women to use their own money to purchase health insurance that 
covers reproductive health services including abortion. Under the bill, 
women and families would be denied access to tax credits to purchase 
any health plan in the health insurance Marketplaces that includes 
abortion services even if they use their own money to pay for coverage 
for those services. Additionally, the bill would deny small business 
owners tax credits if they offer coverage that includes abortion to 
their employees even though large employers can still offer such tax 
exempt coverage. Under this bill, millions of American women would be 
denied access to comprehensive reproductive health care--whether they 
purchase insurance in the Marketplaces or receive it through their 
employers.

[[Page 2136]]

  Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose her own health care is 
fundamental and today's bill is a direct attack on that right. This 
bill was a mistake the first time it was proposed, and it remains a 
mistake today. I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on women and 
instead I urge House Republicans to focus on extending unemployment 
insurance for millions of Americans who are out of work through no 
fault of their own.

                              {time}  1630

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


                           Motion to Recommit

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

       Ms. MOORE moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

                    TITLE III--RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

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

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

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit is very simple, as 
the Clerk stated. It will ensure that nothing in this bill shall be 
construed to authorize any party to violate the medical privacy of any 
woman, including the victims of rape or incest with respect to her 
choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance.
  Here we are today, Madam Speaker, on the day of the State of the 
Union when long-term unemployment insurance has lapsed, debating a 
recycled bill that attacks women's health care. This is truly an out-
of-touch moment for the majority.
  The legislation under consideration today fundamentally lacks 
compassion. Women's health advocates have expressed strong concerns 
about its impact on women's right to privacy when it comes to their 
medical care and decisions. This bill could have damaging effects on 
women who have been raped and victimized by incest, who suffer from 
debilitating illnesses like the one that the gentlelady from California 
described, Vicky, who want nothing more than their right to make their 
own personal health care decisions with their own private insurance.
  I have heard people continuously say that this is a recodification of 
the Hyde amendment. We all abide by the Hyde amendment. This bill seeks 
to strip women of their rights to have insurance even in the private 
insurance market. That is why I invite my colleagues to join me in 
passing this motion to recommit today, to ensure that we do not 
unintentionally eviscerate protections that are fundamental to women's 
health and liberty.
  We are greatly concerned about this legislation, that it would force 
women in private health insurance to have to ``justify'' their need for 
a full range of reproductive health care services even if their life is 
in danger or if they have been the victim of sexual assault or incest. 
This legislation, again, could remove the option for a health insurance 
company to choose to offer comprehensive women's health services.
  Many of us remember, some of us on a very personal level, the 
egregious history of this issue. Many of us remember the shame and 
stigma that women--victims--faced, and still face when they come 
forward to seek services. Depending on how this bill is implemented, a 
woman could be required to provide extensive documentation to save her 
own life or even prove to her insurance company that she was assaulted. 
What will happen? Will she have to go to court, Madam Speaker? Will 
there be an IRS audit?
  Madam Speaker, there are just so many unanswered questions, and the 
answers could have meaningful consequences for women across our entire 
country.
  What kind of proof would a woman need to exercise options for health 
care? Who gets to determine whether or not a woman's sexual assault was 
a legitimate rape? What kind of intensively private information would 
be required to establish this proof? Who in the insurance company or 
other entity would be equipped to make a ruling on the validity laid 
out in the bill?
  Oh, we remember our history as women, of humiliation and public 
degradation that forced victims of rape or incest to stay in the 
shadows rather than to get the health care they need and deserve, or to 
seek justice against their attacker.
  This motion to recommit simply makes sure that we uphold our history 
of protecting the confidentiality and medical privacy of women, 
upholding women's constitutional right to health care, particularly 
those who are victims of terrible crimes. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and rise 
in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I find it so interesting that we have 
an MTR when just 2 weeks ago we brought to this floor a bill that 
Chairman Pitts brought from Energy and Commerce that addressed the 
privacy issues and concerns of all Americans that have had to go to the 
healthcare.gov site. I would remind my colleagues that there were 67 
Members of their caucus that crossed the aisle and voted with us. 
Privacy is an important issue, and we are concerned about that issue 
for all Americans.
  I would also remind my colleagues who have inquired about the 
possibility of an IRS audit that we have seen many of those come out of 
this administration. I would remind them when they say we are 
remembering our history as women that we all stand and we remember that 
the first guarantee, the first right is the right to life. We have a 
responsibility as Members of the people's House to make certain we do 
the will of the people, and over 60 percent of all Americans say do not 
use my money. All money we have is taxpayer money, and do not use it to 
fund abortions. This is what we are doing.
  I would remind all of my colleagues in the House that the bill that 
is before us today upholds and follows a longstanding principle that 
the American people and Members from both sides of the aisle have 
supported for decades, that is, that taxpayer dollars should not be 
spent on abortions and abortion coverage except in the instance of 
rape, incest, and life of the mother.
  The vast majority of my colleagues, Democrat colleagues, voted for 
this same principle in last month's appropriations bill; yet this 
simple fact seems to be eluding most of them who have come to the floor 
today. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to 
recommit and to vote for H.R. 7 and the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page 2137]]


  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 192, 
nays 221, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               YEAS--192

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

                               NAYS--221

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1704

  Messrs. REED, BENTIVOLIO, DesJARLAIS, MURPHY of Pennsylvania, 
GOHMERT, RYAN of Wisconsin, and MESSER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. WATERS, Messrs. GARAMENDI, HUFFMAN, 
Mses. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. 
McINTYRE, RAHALL, and THOMPSON of Mississippi changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 29, I was unexpectedly 
detained and just missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 188, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               YEAS--227

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

[[Page 2138]]


     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--188

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Broun (GA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1712

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


                          Personal Explanation

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

                          ____________________