[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 961-989]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE 
                              ACT OF 2015

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up

[[Page 962]]

House Resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 42

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to 
     prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 42 provides for a closed rule 
allowing consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act.
  Since 1973, at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically 
taken by abortion in the United States. It is unconscionable that in 
America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of an entire 
generation of the most vulnerable among us.
  In the midst of that darkness, there has been one area of consensus, 
Mr. Speaker: protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they 
sincerely oppose. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the 
Federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant 
appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and 
supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.
  NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting 
public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. 
That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a 
publicly funded abortion end up carrying their baby to term.
  In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde 
amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. 
That means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the 
Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this lifesaving 
amendment to become permanent law.
  When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established 
laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy 
that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health 
plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.
  Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, 
bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for 
publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized 
massive Federal subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase 
private health plans that will cover abortions on demand. In other 
words, Mr. Speaker, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to 
pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.
  H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a 
permanent, governmentwide basis, which means that it will apply to 
longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and 
Federal employees' health benefits, as well as to new programs created 
by ObamaCare.
  H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. It does so 
by, one, prohibiting all Federal funding for abortions; two, 
prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include 
coverage for abortion; three, prohibiting the use of Federal facilities 
for abortion; and four, prohibiting Federal employees from performing 
abortions.
  This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan 
agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced 
to fund thousands of abortions.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to respect our 
Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in 
favor of this rule and H.R. 7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, down the hall in the old House Chamber stands Clio, Muse 
of History. Perched atop the room, she is riding the Chariot of Time. 
She has watched silently over the proceedings of this House since 1807. 
And in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm, she records every 
move, large and small, for the benefit of all generations, past, 
present, and future. What she is recording today is, I am certain, a 
disappointment.
  The proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant, overt 
disrespect for the time-honored rules of this House, first written by 
Thomas Jefferson in 1801.
  The bill that was supposed to come to the floor today, a bill that 
would have stripped women of their right to constitutionally protected 
medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of 
the Republican Conference rebelled against it. It was based on unsound 
and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the Republican 
Conference that the House majority pulled it from the floor for fear 
that it wouldn't pass. But something had to be done because visitors 
were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme 
Court decision Roe v. Wade.
  On this day, there are floods of visitors here in the Nation's 
Capital to fight against that ruling, to protest that decision, and to 
raise their clarion call against a woman's right to choose.
  In this current Congress, this bill was not brought to us under 
regular order--as not many are. It had no committee action. It had no 
hearings, no markup, no witnesses testified in favor or against it, and 
it came out of the Rules Committee and to the floor today under a 
closed rule.
  One of the ever-ready alternatives came to us late last night, and it 
is even worse than the one it replaced. It seems that the majority has 
an endless supply of bills attacking women's health. Can't pass this 
one? Grab another. Can't pass that one? Just take the next one. Their 
insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds.
  Because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current 
Congress, no one has been able to read it or to weigh in on it or amend 
it, and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of 
this bill.
  In the earliest version of this bill, which was in the 112th 
Congress, there was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the Nation. It 
was ``forcible rape.'' The bill was, indeed, the one that would have 
required women to prove that their rape was ``forcible'' so it could be 
categorized as ``legitimate.'' Has nothing been learned here?
  The next iteration of the bill, in the 113th Congress, included a 
provision--and listen to this, America--that would have required the 
IRS to audit women who had had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy 
that they terminated had been the result of rape or incest.
  This extreme legislation, which is a dust-covered holdover from the 
last Congress, was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a 
subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. Remember those pictures, 
America, all of those men sitting there deciding what women's health 
would be about? It is a perfect illustration of a problem we have had 
for a long time, that men in blue suits and red ties determine what 
women can and should do when it comes to their own health or bodies.

[[Page 963]]

  This bill is absolutely a solution in search of a problem. As Ms. 
Foxx pointed out, all this is taken care of. There is no tax money for 
abortions. The bill in its current form would permanently prohibit low-
income women, civil servants, District of Columbia residents, and 
military women from accessing a full range of reproductive services by 
codifying the Hyde amendment, which unfortunately already requires no 
taxpayer funds be spent on abortions except in very limited services. 
It has been this way for decades. Congress should be repealing these 
unfair and discriminatory bans, not doubling down on them.
  Are these provisions still in the current bill text before us? We 
have had no chance to check, and it has been awhile since we have seen 
this bill.
  This display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act. This bill not only threatens women 
who buy their insurance on public exchanges with Federal tax credits 
but also threatens women who use their own private money to pay for 
their health insurance on the exchanges. Experts tell us this would 
jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women, no 
matter where they buy their insurance.
  When the House considered this bill in the previous Congress, it was 
attempt number 49. Today, it is attempt number 55. That is right, 
ladies and gentlemen, 55 votes the majority has held in this Chamber to 
take health care away from their own constituents. The House majority 
has wasted nearly $80 million of taxpayer money to destroy the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Infrastructure money, anyone?
  Time and again, we see the House majority turn their backs on the 
people they represent and force an extreme agenda, one filled with 
poison pills that would take our country backward, backward to a time 
when women died from back-alley abortions; backward to a time of women 
in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by 
strangers with dirty hands in unspeakable conditions; backward to a 
time when medical choices were not the choice of the woman, but of the 
public; backward to a time when women who ``got themselves into 
trouble'' by getting pregnant could not work and could not go to 
school.
  These choices are personal. They are not public. A woman's actions 
regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems 
appropriate, not politicians in Washington or State capitals scoring 
political points off her health care.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, this legislation is 
identical to H.R. 7, which passed the House last Congress after moving 
through regular order, including a full committee markup.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest champions of life in this 
House.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for 
yielding and for her leadership, and for reminding us that this bill 
passed the House last year in identical form. The only thing changed 
are the dates, because obviously they had to be updated. It is a 12-
page bill which can be very quickly read by any Member. And the only 
reason we have to be here is because the Senate wouldn't provide a vote 
on it. So the Senate just shelved it, and we are now bringing it back 
up on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates, or 
chemically poisons unborn children to death--the part of abortion that 
my friends on the other side of this issue have a keen reluctance to 
not look at and to avoid, abortion methods--we know we will soon have 
the pain-capable legislation on the floor, and it will come to the 
floor. We know that children suffer excruciating pain from 
dismemberment. Piece by piece, a child is literally pulled apart--arms, 
legs, torso, and decapitation. That is the reality of abortion, Madam 
Speaker.
  Because of all of this, Americans have consistently demanded--and now 
in ever-growing numbers--that public funds not pay for abortion. I 
would point out to my colleagues that yesterday the Marist Poll found 
that 68 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions, and 
that includes 69 percent of women; 71 percent of the next generation, 
the millennials, oppose taxpayer funding for abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will save lives. We know the Hyde amendment has 
probably saved at least 1 million lives, children who are on soccer 
fields today or in school, perhaps even getting married, people who 
live because the Hyde amendment has been in effect since the 1970s. 
Over a million children are alive because of that restriction of 
abortion from Medicaid funding.

                              {time}  0930

  H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. It makes the Hyde amendment 
and other current funding prohibitions permanent, so they don't have to 
be included in the annual appropriations bills. It ensures that the 
Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as 
promised by the President.
  It provides full disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of 
the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds 
abortion. Now, that is all being done stealthily, hidden from the 
consumer. They have no idea when they are buying a plan that the plan 
is paying for abortion on demand.
  Let me remind my colleagues that in the runup to passage of the 
Affordable Care Act, Americans were assured by President Obama himself, 
right there at the podium, and he said in September of 2009 that 
``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.'' 
That is the President's word.
  He also said on March 24, 2010, in order to get a number of pro-life 
Democrats, he gave them his word and wrote that the Affordable Care Act 
``maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion 
policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance 
exchanges.'' Nothing, Madam Speaker, could be further from the truth.
  We asked the General Accountability Office last year to look into how 
many of these plans were paying for abortion. They came back and said 
well over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchange were funding abortion 
on demand, completely contrary to what our President told us would be 
the case in a speech to all of us in 2009 and then in an executive 
order that he issued.
  Agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but let's always be 
truthful. President Obama told us funding wouldn't be in there, yet it 
is.
  There is also problems with transparency. Senator Ben Nelson, in 
order to procure his vote, said there has to be two payments for 
abortion if it is included when the bill is on the Senate side.
  He said: ``If you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance 
and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must 
bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal 
funds--perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, 
or automatic withdrawal from your bank account--for that abortion 
coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one 
for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for 
abortion.''
  That is not being implemented either, so the premium is all rolled 
into one. Again, conscientious pro-life Americans who do not want to be 
complicit in the wounding of women and the killing of babies are paying 
for abortion, and many of them don't even know it.
  I hope that Members will vote for the rule, and to those who think 
that there will be no debate and vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, that will come to the floor; and, again, you defend 
dismemberment abortions at 20 weeks, 21 weeks, 23 weeks, where the 
child suffers excruciating pain.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say there 
is

[[Page 964]]

no scientific evidence at all. As a matter of fact, gynecologists have 
all written to us--and we have their statements--that there is no way 
of fetal pain at 20 weeks.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger 
paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access 
to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record, as a woman and as a Member of Congress and a 
citizen of the United States, that the House should vote for bigger 
paychecks, and they should vote for better infrastructure instead of 
attacking women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend for a moment.
  The Chair would advise Members that although a unanimous consent 
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative 
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure, 
embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate and can become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded for that purpose.
  The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be 
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members 
to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Chair is correct, and we 
will do that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Adams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger 
paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access 
to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene) to speak as a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  H.R. 7 is yet another direct attack on women and their families. It 
creates sweeping new restrictions on abortion coverage for women who 
purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act, with no meaningful 
exception to protect a woman's health, and experts predict that it 
could cause many insurers to limit women's health options in their 
plans altogether.
  This bill injects ideology into personal medical decisions and puts 
politicians, rather than doctors, in charge of women's health care. 
Instead of this extreme legislation, Congress should address the real 
challenges facing women and families today.
  At a time when 42 million women are either living in poverty or on 
the brink of it, Congress must do more to help. We should be focused on 
expanding access to child care, providing workers with paid sick leave, 
and ensuring women equal pay for equal work. This bill does none of 
these. It fails women and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both the rule and H.R. 7.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin.
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. It is plain wrong to use America's 
hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortions.
  On September 9, 2009, President Obama told the joint session of 
Congress:
  One more misunderstanding I want to clear up--under our plan, no 
Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience 
laws will remain in place.
  Those of us in the pro-life community knew that this was simply not 
the

[[Page 965]]

case, and last September, the Government Accountability Office 
confirmed that, under ObamaCare, abortions are being paid for with 
taxpayer funds by more than 1,000 ObamaCare exchange plans across the 
country.
  Our bill ends taxpayer funding for abortion, fulfilling one of the 
promises that this President has broken. Let's pass this bill and end 
the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in American history.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding.
  I, too, rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
  Today, on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should be 
celebrating it, not dismantling it. I heard my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle talk about pain.
  Well, do you want to know about pain? Think back in horror to the 
perils for our mothers, our daughters, and our sisters in the days 
before the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right 
to make our own personal health care decisions.
  Back then, our country faced a public health crisis as women were 
maimed, made sterile, and lost their lives as a result of self-
inflicted or illegal abortions. I remember finding a friend who was 
near death as a result of a back alley procedure.
  Since Roe v. Wade, State after State, including Florida, my home 
State, has passed onerous laws criminalizing doctors, requiring 
unnecessary tests, and other insidious obstructions to prevent access 
to abortion.
  Today, Congress again piles on to the damage hurting the poorest of 
our citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Here is a much better way to make lives 
better for our children, and that is to allow their mothers to live 
full, productive lives; and instead of this bill, pass the Women's 
Health Protection Act to ensure that no matter where a woman lives, she 
has access to the resources needed to make her own health care 
decisions.
  We cannot and will not go back.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan, Dr. Benishek.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rights of 
the unborn and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
  I, along with many in northern Michigan, believe that life inside the 
womb is just as precious as life outside the womb and must be 
protected. Both unborn and born children have a right to life.
  The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are not used to subsidize a practice that so many of my 
constituents cannot condone. Your hard-earned tax dollars should not be 
used to pay for abortions.
  I served as a doctor for 30 years in northern Michigan, and I have 
had the awesome gift of witnessing the miracle of new life in the 
delivery room. I have also been blessed with the experience as a father 
and a grandfather, and I know how life-changing this event can be.
  I want to commend the pro-life grassroots efforts led by passionate 
advocates in our local communities. Thank you for the hard work that 
you do to educate our communities on the value of life.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, despite the misleading title of this bill, the fact is 
that there is no Federal taxpayer funding of abortion right now except 
in very limited circumstances.
  H.R. 7 would for the first time place restrictions on how women with 
private insurance can spend private dollars in purchasing health care. 
It would also likely result in the loss of access to comprehensive 
health care for millions of women who work for small businesses or who 
will be purchasing insurance in the Health Insurance Marketplaces. 
Politicians are not medical experts and should not be dictating health 
care decisions for women.
  House Republicans are scrambling this morning to consider the rule 
for H.R. 7 at the last minute because it became clear that the overly 
restrictive and unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban would fail a 
floor vote. Why? Because Americans support comprehensive health care 
for all women. House Republicans should be bringing up bills to 
strengthen the economy, to guarantee women equal pay for equal work, to 
raise the minimum wage, to make child care affordable, and not limit a 
woman's access to health services in a desperate attempt to relitigate 
a very divisive issue.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many 
longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both 
Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses. The majority of 
taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll 
after poll:
  A recent Marist poll showed that 58 percent of respondents oppose or 
strongly oppose using any tax dollars for abortions;
  During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 
percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an 
abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother;
  A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed that 67 percent of 
respondents opposed the Federal funding of abortion;
  An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed 
public funding for abortion;
  A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed that 61 percent of 
respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that 
include abortion;
  A September 2009 International Communications Research poll showed 
that 67 percent of respondents opposed any measure that would ``require 
people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''
  In other words, Madam Speaker, the American people do not want the 
government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent 
human life--period.
  Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude 
abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade 
association, ``Most insurers offer plans that include abortion 
coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their 
benefits packages.''
  Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to 
prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. 
President Obama voted against the taxpayer funding of abortion in the 
District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being 
elected, he has signed appropriations legislation into law that 
prohibits this funding.
  As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for 
abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and is supported by the majority of 
the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on the 
government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy 
permanent across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I will comment on the demerits of this terrible bill 
in the debate on the bill. I want to comment now on how this bill got 
before us.
  This is, I think, the fifth bill we have considered in this Congress. 
Not one of

[[Page 966]]

those bills went through committee. Not one of those bills had a 
markup, a hearing, an opportunity for people to amend the bills in 
committee, and now the bills come to the floor for an hour of debate 
with no opportunity to offer amendments. This is hardly the 
transparency and the due process that the GOP leaders promised us.
  This bill is even worse because this bill was not on the calendar 
until late last night. Yesterday, when the Republican anti-choice women 
rebelled at the terrible rape provisions of the bill we were supposed 
to debate today and when they found they couldn't pass a bill today on 
the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, they brought another off-the-shelf 
bill, which is a terrible bill, with no hearing in committee, no debate 
in committee, no markup, no opportunity to offer amendments, no vote in 
committee, no opportunity to offer amendments on the floor.
  This is not the way you run or should run the House of 
Representatives of the United States. It is a shameful procedure for a 
shameful bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind my 
colleagues that H.R. 7 passed last year. It passed with an overwhelming 
majority. It is the same bill. It went through regular order. Hearings 
and a markup were held, and the legislation came through regular order 
in the House of Representatives. The problem has been the Senate, which 
has refused to take up this bill for well over a year, so we are back 
to take up a bill that has already been approved by the House in 
regular order.
  Let me remind my colleagues as well that, next week, we will be 
taking up a number of bills that will combat human trafficking. Madam 
Speaker, I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 2000, Americans' landmark law to combat the hideous crime of sex 
trafficking and labor trafficking.
  We have a number of important antihuman trafficking bills that passed 
the House but sat over on the Senate side for a year or more--some of 
them--including two of mine, and we are talking about bringing those 
bills up next week. Regular order was followed last year on those 
bills--just like H.R. 7. Those bills languished on the Senate side. 
Surely, we can come together to combat human trafficking. The flaw in 
the process was the Senate and its former leadership unwillingness to 
vote on House-passed legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you very much.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to state this as simply as I can. There is 
no public funding for abortion. Whether you like it or not, the Hyde 
amendment, which has been the law of this land for decades now, says 
there is no public funding for abortion. That has not changed. There is 
no public funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act or any 
other government program.
  This bill would vastly expand the current restrictions on a woman's 
right to get her own health care through her insurance, with her own 
private money, that she, her family, and her doctor think she needs. 
Let me say how this would work. Under H.R. 7, people who buy their 
insurance in exchanges--and their employers--now would not be able to 
spend their own private dollars to buy insurance that they need for 
themselves and their families.
  This not only would be a radical expansion over current law, it would 
be a terrible wedge between patients and their doctors. I do not care 
how many polls there are that you might cite, because the vast majority 
of Americans think that a woman's private health care decisions should 
be made between herself, her family, and her doctor--certainly, not by 
politicians in Washington, D.C.
  H.R. 7 is an idea that has been proposed time and again. It is not 
going anywhere. I am sure it will probably pass this House today, and 
it will go over to the other body, and it will die. If not, the 
President will veto it.
  Here are my questions to my friends on the other side of the aisle: 
Why aren't we spending this week talking about how the women of America 
can get better paychecks? Why aren't we spending our time talking this 
week about how the women and men of America can get tax credits so that 
the children they do have can go to child care that is quality child 
care? Why aren't we spending our time this week talking about how women 
and men should be able to get paid the same amount for doing the very 
same job?
  That is what I think this Congress should be spending its time doing, 
not passing these bills which are false statements about a woman's 
private decisions about her health care. I urge the body to defeat this 
bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say as forcefully as I can that there is nothing in H.R. 7 
that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. There 
is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that 
include abortion. Consistent with the Hyde amendment, the bill ensures 
that Federal dollars--wherever those Federal dollars come from--do not 
subsidize plans that cover abortion.
  What is important to explain is that the Hyde amendment has only in 
the past applied to annual appropriations bills. As we have done our 
best to explain to the American people, ObamaCare is not subject to 
annual appropriations bills but is funded under mandatory spending. 
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that we codify that no 
Federal funds can be used for abortions. That is what this bill does.
  If our colleagues believe it is unnecessary, then they should have no 
problem voting for it because, then, it is not doing anything that 
violates what has been done in the past. However, this bill is 
necessary. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, that H.R. 7 simply codifies 
the longstanding bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funding 
should not be used to destroy innocent life.
  H.R. 7 does so by establishing a permanent, governmentwide 
prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, 
including cutting off taxpayer funding for plans that include abortion 
under ObamaCare;
  It prevents funding for abortion in government programs like 
Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program, and the Children's 
Health Insurance Program;
  The bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the form of 
refundable tax credits under the ACA are prevented from flowing to 
plans that include abortion;
  H.R. 7 also explicitly states that private individuals may purchase 
separate abortion coverage or plans that include abortion as long as no 
Federal subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Similarly, 
H.R. 7 explicitly states that insurance companies may offer abortion 
coverage as long as the coverage is not paid for by using taxpayer 
dollars.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you to my colleague from North Carolina for, once 
again, being such a strong defender of life.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 7. I believe 
in the sanctity of human life and that life begins at conception and 
ends at death. My life's experiences as a mom, as a nurse, and as a 
Christian have helped me to form these core beliefs.
  I have held the hands of newborn infants, and I have held the hands 
of elderly patients in the last moments of their lives. I have been 
blessed to have had such special moments, and because of them, I know 
that every life is precious and is a gift from God and that it is not 
for us to judge its worth.
  Madam Speaker, the unborn need us to stand up for them and to be the 
voice that they do not have. I support this legislation, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that 
we

[[Page 967]]

have heard what is in this bill, but this bill was taken out of the 
used-bill freezer last night at 9 o'clock, against all the rules, and 
put on the floor today. We really don't know what is in this bill.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Rochester for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try again. That is 
clearly what my Republican colleagues are doing this morning.
  The bill Republicans initially attempted to bring to the floor today 
would have required women to go to the police before they could even 
address their own health care needs. They abandoned that first line of 
attack on women's health because it was too extreme, even for members 
of their own party. But they weren't going to let something like that 
stop them from pandering to the rightwing flank. Fortunately for the 
Republicans, they have a long list of bills that attack health care and 
women's access to care. So it is easy for them to just swap it out for 
another extremist effort. Their partisan base will be happy--but at the 
expense of the health of many women and families in our country.
  This bill will have a serious impact on families' ability to make 
their own health care decisions. It will raise taxes on hardworking 
Americans just if they happen to choose a health care plan that this 
majority doesn't like. And for what? So my Republican colleagues can 
score cheap political points.
  This is not what the American people want. They want an agenda that 
lifts people up. They want us to be working on legislation that creates 
jobs, boosts paychecks in this country, and strengthens our economy. 
This bill will do none of these things. It is nothing but a cynical 
attempt to put politics where it doesn't belong.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this blatant political 
gambit.
  I understand how embarrassing this may be to the Republicans because 
of the little snafu within their own caucus, but please put aside this 
petty politics. Let's get on to the real business of creating more jobs 
in this country and boosting a person's pay in this land. That is what 
the American people want and need.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for her diligence and efforts on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I think we all are pleased to have so many of our 
constituents in town today who are supporting life and supporting that 
concept of life, liberty, and freedom.
  It is such an honor today to come to the floor and talk about an 
issue that 68 percent of the American people agree on. Listening to my 
colleagues talking about how this is partisan and just for our base, I 
am glad that they think 68 percent of the American people are our 
base--because they do agree with us. Seventy-one percent of millennials 
agree with us on this issue. And the issue is simply this: there should 
not be taxpayer dollars used to pay for abortions.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has done a tremendous 
amount of work on this bill. I thank him for his diligence, his 
attention, and for working to get H.R. 7 in the right form, ready to 
move forward and to bring this issue into the light.
  We have got three things we want to focus on in this bill. Number 
one, there is enormous bipartisan support--I would say near unanimous 
bipartisan support--for the Hyde amendment language. Title I of this 
bill is going to make that permanent.
  Madam Speaker, what that means is no longer do we have to revote this 
over and over and over. The Hyde amendment language will be the applied 
standard.
  Title II of this bill will apply that to ObamaCare.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, what it will do is apply that to 
ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.
  Now the reason it is imperative, the President promised on numerous 
occasions, Madam Speaker, that there would be no taxpayer dollars, 
which become Federal funds, used for abortion. This was a big debate as 
we went through the Affordable Care Act.
  What we have learned from not us but from the GAO is that we have in 
the marketplace 1,036 plans. We have over 1,000 plans that allow those 
dollars into those plans. What this bill will also do is bring 
transparency not only to the plans but to the money flow, so that 
hardworking American taxpayers who do not want their money used to pay 
for abortion--68 percent agree with us--will have clarity and certainty 
on the issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, I am totally puzzled. I came to the floor thinking 
that we were going to be focused on creating jobs, putting people to 
work, helping our young people go to college, and reducing student loan 
debts. Where is the regular procedure that my friends on the other side 
of the aisle were going to bring to the House? Where did this bill come 
from? Did it come from the committee process? No.
  Let me make this very, very clear. I knew Henry Hyde. I worked with 
Henry Hyde. The Hyde amendment is the law of the land. There is no 
public money for abortion.
  This is a radical bill that restricts women paying for private 
insurance with their own dollars. Millions of women would lose 
comprehensive health care. I just don't understand it.
  As an appropriator, we still have not brought the Homeland Security 
bill to the floor. As a resident of New York, I am concerned by 
possible attacks.
  Let's do our work. Let's move on.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill 
just came to the floor without serious discussion and when there is no 
public money for abortion today as a result of the Hyde amendment.
  I look forward to bringing a Homeland Security bill to the floor. As 
I began to say, as a New Yorker, I am concerned about potential threats 
to our country.
  Let's get to work. Let's create jobs. Let's do the work that our 
citizens--our constituents--brought us here to do. I don't understand 
this bill. And in closing, there is no public money for abortion.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of 
Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly 
business of abortion. This bill will make existing policies like the 
Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive 
expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.
  The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would 
``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion 
policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance 
exchanges.'' Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that promise didn't pan out. 
It now joins ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President 
Obama's panoply of broken promises.
  Madam Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are coming 
to Washington, D.C., to brave the cold and march for life. Participants 
hail from all 50 States, have various religions, and are from all 
different walks of life and ages. But the one thing they have in common 
is the shared dedication to protecting the unborn.
  The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a 
powerful message to the Representatives of the people assembled here in 
Congress. It is

[[Page 968]]

heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing 
to take a stand for life.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a partisan issue and this is not a 
partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that 
our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. 
This is not a radical idea. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies 
a longstanding compromise. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to 
vote for this rule and H.R. 7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman from the 
great State of New York for her extraordinary leadership on the Rules 
Committee and in so many areas for this country and our State.
  I rise today in strong opposition to yet another closed rule. Despite 
all the lectures from Republicans about how creating jobs and growing 
the economy should be the number one top priority for this Congress, 
here we are instead once again hammering away at a woman's right to 
make her own choices, control her own body, and make choices about her 
own health care.
  It is insulting to women, and it does not create one single job. But 
what it does do is put government between a physician and its patient. 
That is what it does. The other side says they want freedom and they 
want the government off their back. Yet on the most personal health 
care decisions for women, they are putting government between a woman 
and her doctor.
  This bill will not grow our economy, but it will make permanent such 
discriminatory bans that target women in both the public and private 
health insurance market.
  Republicans claim on their Web site--you can look it up and see it on 
their Web site--that they want to ``do something for the 8.7 million 
people in America who are still unemployed.'' It is time to focus on 
creating jobs and improving the economy for Americans, yet the first 
bill the Republican majority puts on the floor does not create one 
single job but discriminates, hurts, and insults women.
  I urge a strong, strong ``no'' vote on this rule and on the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for being 
very vigilant in protecting women, women's right to privacy, and 
alerting us as to the dangers in this very terrible rule and terrible 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, once again, as I said yesterday, this is 
just downright wrong. This is a horrible bill. This takes away a 
woman's right to privacy. Again, I thought in our country we prided 
ourselves on the right to privacy.
  Women have a right to determine their own health care decisions. They 
can make these decisions with whomever they deem appropriate. There is 
no way that Members of Congress should intervene, direct, or 
superimpose views and government policies on women's health care and 
women's right to privacy.

                              {time}  1015

  Once again, the Hyde amendment was passed, I believe it was--what--in 
the seventies. We should be providing access to women's health care so 
low-income women would have the same opportunities to determine their 
own health care decisions as other women who have the access, but 
Federal funds haven't been allowed for many, many years now.
  I don't know why these bogus arguments are being made on this bill 
because we don't have Federal funding of abortions, and I think women 
know that and see this as a real sinister move to, once again, deny 
women their right to health care and their right to privacy.
  Also, once again, we are seeing how another bill further undermines 
D.C.'s home rule. This bill prohibits the District of Columbia from 
using its own funds to provide abortions. Why would we do this?
  D.C. has a right to determine how they want to provide health care 
for women and have their own ability to determine their own destiny; 
but, once again, for low-income women in Washington, D.C., they are 
under assault with this bill.
  It is really a shame and disgrace that, once again, we have to get up 
here and debunk the argument that Federal funds are being used for 
abortions because they are not. Today, the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. 
Wade, we should really be talking about expanding access to a full 
range of reproductive health services for everyone, including low-
income women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
  Ms. LEE. We should be talking about expanding reproductive health 
services for all women, including low-income women. We should be 
talking about pay equity. We should be talking about child care. We 
should be talking about paid family medical leave. We should be talking 
about creating jobs.
  But rather than that, here we go, once again, trying to get in the 
middle of a woman's decision to move forward with her own life based on 
the decisions that she and her physician and her family members make.
  The right to privacy, once again, is being undermined by this bill. 
You can't have a right to privacy and keep government out of your 
private life on one hand and, on the other hand, say government has got 
to interfere with your personal and private business.
  Health care is too important for women. Women need to be able to make 
their own health care decisions, and this bill would do the exact 
opposite. It would move our country backwards. It would move women's 
health care backwards.
  I hope that Members will vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the 
bill. We need to be expanding access to women's health care.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While it is true that the Hyde amendment and its companion amendments 
have been renewed every year, recent implementation of the Affordable 
Care Act, or ObamaCare, has ignored these restrictions. Rather than 
renewing various amendments each year, we should make the prohibition 
on Federal abortion funding permanent and governmentwide.
  Additionally, provisions contained in the Abortion Insurance Full 
Disclosure Act have been included in H.R. 7. These provisions require 
the exchanges to prominently display, one, whether a plan provides for 
abortion coverage; and, two, if it does, the amount of the abortion 
surcharge that the consumer is required to pay.
  Unfortunately, for most consumers, finding out if the plans on their 
State's exchange or the Federal marketplace covers abortion is nearly 
impossible because the information is not consistently available.
  Knowing whether these plans cover abortion is absolutely critical to 
many consumers because plans that cover elective abortion are required 
by law to impose a mandatory monthly abortion surcharge.
  These surcharges are not optional. Once you sign up for a plan with 
abortion coverage, you must pay the surcharge. This means that, 
potentially, many Americans who strongly oppose elective abortion could 
be unknowingly contributing to the practice financially.
  Madam Speaker, that simply isn't right. H.R. 7 will stop funding for 
plans that cover elective abortion under ObamaCare and ensure that 
abortion coverage and the accompanying surcharge are made transparent 
to the American people.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and H.R. 
7, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

[[Page 969]]


  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let me first say something about the process that we are engaged in. 
We have heard just in the last few weeks--and even as we opened this 
Congress--the Speaker and others in the majority talk about how we will 
adhere to regular order and we will get back to the process of 
legislating the way it was intended to be conducted.
  What happened to that? Why did we set that aside? What is the 
emergency that requires us to bring this highly ideological piece of 
legislation to the floor in just a few hours after it had been brought 
to the Rules Committee? What happened to the previous legislation that 
we were supposed to debate?
  I mean, to me, this is a big problem, and it is one that I think begs 
the question of whether or not those offers of returning to the regular 
legislative process are sincere.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule for that reason, but also because 
this is yet just another ideological attack on the health care rights 
of women in this country who want--in some cases, we know that abortion 
services are already prohibited from being funded through Federal 
sources.
  This is simply going so far as to say that women, with their own 
money, who seek to procure insurance coverage, can't seek that coverage 
if it includes these services. To me, it goes just far too far. It does 
not allow even exceptions for abortions that would be required to 
protect the health of the woman or serious medical concerns.
  We can't continue to make this a political question and a political 
football. Forty-two years ago, this question was decided at the Supreme 
Court. It is a right that is protected.
  Rather than continuing to just sort of pander to the base and satisfy 
the ideological extremists in our country, we ought to be thinking 
about the questions that people actually want us to take this precious 
time on the floor of the House to debate: How are we going to put 
America back to work? How are we going to rebuild our infrastructure? 
How are we going to make sure that kids who want to get a good college 
education the way the President outlined the other night are going to 
be able to afford that?
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is clear some of 
our colleagues have not read the bill or have not listened to the 
debate. This bill does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion 
coverage with their own money.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I also want to thank Mr. Smith and my colleagues and all who are in 
Washington, D.C., participating in the March for Life for their 
unwavering commitment and support to fight on behalf of those who have 
no voice.
  Throughout my years in Congress, Madam Speaker, and as a devoted 
human rights advocate, I have fought tirelessly for the fundamental 
rights of the innocent unborn.
  As pro-life Members of Congress, we have a commitment to stand up for 
life and to take the necessary steps to advance legislation to the 
floor, and that is exactly what the U.S. House of Representatives will 
be doing today.
  While the vast majority of Americans can agree that we have a lot of 
work in front of us to reduce the number of abortions, few legislators 
have taken any meaningful action. In fact, pro-abortion Members of 
Congress have sought to eliminate Federal protections on the use of 
taxpayer funds for abortions, both here and abroad.
  Federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions, Madam Speaker, 
and Congressman Smith's bill would do exactly that by establishing a 
permanent prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion 
coverage. This will help save lives.
  In addition, this bill also protects the conscience and religious 
views of millions of Americans. The vast majority of Americans also do 
not want their tax dollars to be used to pay for abortions. This bill 
would establish a permanent prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for 
abortion.
  For many years, the Hyde amendment and other Federal prohibitions on 
public funding for abortion have been enacted as appropriation riders, 
but they are not permanent, Madam Speaker. We need to get rid of this 
patchwork approach and enact H.R. 7 to ensure that Federal funds are 
not used to pay for abortions.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Smith and Ms. Foxx and others in 
favor of this bill and to continue working with my fellow pro-life 
colleagues in the House and the Senate to promote legislation that 
upholds the sanctity of innocent human life.
  We have a responsibility to protect the unborn, and we must remain 
vigilant and continue to do what is right for all Americans.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we just heard that apparently none of us have read the 
bill. That is absolutely true. The bill, as I said, was dragged out of 
the ``used bill freezer'' at 9 last night.
  If it is the same bill that we were talking about that has been 
through for several terms, it still has the idea of forcible rape being 
the only legitimate rape and that the IRS can audit to see if you were 
really raped when you had an abortion and to prove that--again, taking 
women back to the days when everybody said that they could not make 
decisions and that they had to be made for them.
  If this is the same bill that was brought to us, as we pointed out, 
by a subcommittee of 13 men and voted through the House by a committee 
of 21 men, then we don't need to read it again, and my understanding is 
that this is the same bill. It was repugnant then, and it certainly is 
repugnant now.
  On behalf of the men and women of the United States who feel that 
they have the right to make their own health decisions, I beg the House 
of Representatives to turn down all of this.
  Now, we know that what they are doing, literally, is dismissive of 
not only 51 percent of the women population--we are the majority 
population, we women in the United States--but this is certainly, by 
any account, a misuse of the Chamber's attention, and we are talking 
taxpayer funds. Believe me, this is a misuse of taxpayer funds.
  Now, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule that would allow us to strike the 3-day layover waiver, the 
waiver that was given by the Rules Committee to not do the 3-day 
layover, but to have something to do on the floor today.
  With 23 months left of the 114th Congress, we should be able to run 
the House in the thoughtful manner that the rules of the House provide 
for.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Now, I am going to urge again for all my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote 
``no'' on the rule and, by all means, ``no'' on the intrusive, 
deceptive bill that has been talked about here for 40 years.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is 
sacred and God-given, but millions of babies have been robbed of that 
right in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy 
beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.
  One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be 
valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, 
ushered in by an unelected court, will be closed and collectively 
deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history, but until that 
day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

[[Page 970]]



                              {time}  1030

  Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak 
for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can 
change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power, who 
equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.
  Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an 
important, longstanding, bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn 
and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of 
elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is 
the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral 
consensus in Congress. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
rule and H.R. 7.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 42 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       On page 1, line 4 of the resolution, insert the following 
     after the word ``waived'': ``except those arising under 
     clause 11 of rule XXI''.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               YEAS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters

[[Page 971]]


     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Forbes
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Marchant
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Smith (WA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1056

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Forbes
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Lowenthal
     Marchant
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier

                              {time}  1104

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 42, 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 (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution 42, 
the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill 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 2015''.
       (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.

[[Page 972]]

``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, 2015, 
     but only with respect to plan years beginning after such 
     date, and the amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to 
     plan years beginning after such date.

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

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 1303(b) of Public 
     Law 111-148 (42 U.S.C. 18023(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Rules relating to notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--The extent of coverage (if any) of 
     services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) or (1)(B)(ii) by a 
     qualified health plan shall be disclosed to enrollees at the 
     time of enrollment in the plan and shall be prominently 
     displayed in any marketing or advertising materials, 
     comparison tools, or summary of benefits and coverage 
     explanation made available with respect to such plan by the 
     issuer of the plan, by an Exchange, or by the Secretary, 
     including information made available through an Internet 
     portal or Exchange under sections 1311(c)(5) and 
     1311(d)(4)(C).
       ``(B) Separate disclosure of abortion surcharges.--In the 
     case of a qualified

[[Page 973]]

     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 gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 
and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             general leave

  Mr. PITTS. 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong support of H.R. 7, 
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full 
Disclosure Act, legislation that passed the House almost 1 year ago 
with bipartisan support.
  This bill affirms what a majority of Americans believe, that 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 longstanding 
protection of taxpayer dollars.
  The bill before us would simply codify the Hyde amendment, a 
longstanding provision that has ensured Federal dollars do not 
subsidize abortion over the past decade.
  H.R. 7 also requires that information regarding abortion coverage as 
well as the amount of the abortion surcharge be displayed where 
consumers can easily identify which plans cover abortion. Consumers 
should have the right to know whether the plan they are selecting on an 
exchange includes abortion coverage.
  While the Affordable Care Act 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, as former Secretary Sebelius 
failed to uphold her commitment after testifying twice before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, promising to provide the Congress and 
the American people a full list of exchange plans providing abortion 
coverage.
  Today, over a year has passed and this commitment is still left 
unfulfilled. The self-appointed ``most transparent administration'' in 
history is simply unwilling or unable to comply with this request. In 
fact, it took the Government Accountability Office months to find out 
that taxpayer dollars went to pay for over 1,000 health insurance plans 
that included abortion.
  Even though the Affordable Care Act required, through law, that 
separate payments be made to pay for the abortion surcharge, the GAO 
also found that none of the insurers they interviewed actually 
collected a separate payment.
  In fact, the report reveals that the administration informed 
insurance issuers that they didn't need two separate payments. 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 the bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, I have good news for my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. Let me say that 
again. There is no taxpayer funding for abortions. There hasn't been 
for many decades because of the Hyde amendment.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, that prohibition did not change. Now, 
some of us might disagree with the Hyde amendment, but that is the law 
of the land, and it was a carefully constructed compromise under the 
Affordable Care Act.

                              {time}  1115

  This bill would be a vast expansion of the restriction of a woman's 
right to choose what type of insurance she can purchase with the 
consultation of her doctor and her husband because it would prevent 
women from purchasing insurance with their own money on the exchanges, 
and that would be a restriction on their rights. So I am going to urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of 
legislation, and let's talk about some things that really matter, like 
jobs, child care, and pay equity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today as a supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act. I was a cosponsor of this legislation in the 
previous two Congresses, and I continue to support it after hearing 
from my constituents time and time again that they do not want their 
tax dollars funding abortions. In fact, the majority of Americans and 
the vast majority of Kansans oppose their tax dollars being used 
towards abortion.
  The specter of taxpayer-funded abortion has been exacerbated by the 
President's health care law, which offers subsidies to taxpayers in 
order to offset its high cost. These subsidized plans, bought through 
the health care exchanges, could allow for taxpayer-funded abortions to 
occur.
  Without this crucial legislation, we will continue to have a 
patchwork of provisions regarding Federal funding. This creates 
confusion, blocks transparency, and opens up additional loopholes. 
Longstanding provisions are reestablished under H.R. 7, which would 
apply uniformly across Federal programs, including the President's 
destructive health care law.
  I urge passage of this bipartisan bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my 
statement inserted in the Record of the House of Representatives that 
we should be considering bigger paychecks and better infrastructure 
instead of attacking women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record of the House of Representatives that we should 
vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of 
attacking women's access to all health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better 
infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for the

[[Page 974]]

purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank the gentlewoman from 
Colorado.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better 
infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Gutierrez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking my daughter's access to 
health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Veasey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. VEASEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should be 
voting on proposals that create jobs and accelerate economic growth. 
Instead, the only thing the Republicans have accelerated around here is 
their attacks on a woman's constitutional rights and health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises Members that although a 
unanimous consent request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a 
simple, declarative statement of the Member's attitude toward the 
pending measure, embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate 
and can become an imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded 
for that purpose.
  The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be 
necessary to accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members 
to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House, instead of attacking women's 
access to health care, should be voting on bigger paychecks and better 
infrastructure for our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House, instead of attacking women's 
access to health care, we should vote for bigger paychecks and better 
infrastructure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote 
for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of constantly 
attacking women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that instead of attacking women's access to 
health care, this House should vote for bigger paychecks for women and 
better infrastructure for all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama 
(Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger 
paychecks and better infrastructure instead of constantly attacking 
women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that this House should be voting for bigger 
paychecks and better infrastructure instead of these relentless attacks 
on women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra), the Democratic Caucus chairman, for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that this House should start to concentrate 
finally on bigger paychecks for our people who are working and better 
infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to decent health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of yet another attack on women's 
access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my

[[Page 975]]

statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks 
and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, 
the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Today, on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the majority is 
launching yet another attack on women's health and constitutionally 
protected right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
  Most importantly, this bill will make it virtually impossible for a 
woman to obtain abortion services even when 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.
  And despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not codify 
current law, and it is not about the regulation of Federal funds. There 
is no Federal funding of abortion due to the Hyde amendment, and the 
Affordable Care Act maintains that policy and law.
  For more than 30 years, Congress has prohibited Federal funding of 
abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the 
mother, through provisions like the Hyde amendment in annual 
appropriations bills. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this.
  Finally, H.R. 7 also eradicates the authority of the District of 
Columbia to make decisions about how appropriated funds are used for 
the health care of the District's citizens.
  So what is H.R. 7 really about? Plain and simple, it is an assault on 
women's health and freedom. It permanently blocks abortion coverage for 
low-income women, civil servants, D.C. residents, and the military. No 
committee has considered this legislation. Text was not even available 
until last night, when the Rules Committee met in a so-called emergency 
meeting. But the only emergency was the majority didn't have the votes 
to pass another mean-spirited, anti-choice bill so they are rushing to 
the floor with this bill in time for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
  Isn't it time to stop playing politics with women's lives and start 
governing? Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious 
bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today because I believe all 
human life is worth protecting. Each one is worth saving and deserves 
respect and protection.
  For years now, pro-life Americans have been forced to watch as their 
tax dollars subsidize abortion procedures that they are morally opposed 
to. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion legislation prohibits taxpayer 
funding of elective abortions no matter where in the Federal system 
these may occur. This principle is supported by a majority of 
Americans. In fact, 56 percent of Americans are opposed to taxpayer 
funding of abortions.
  Later today, I will join half a million people who believe that life 
is a gift at the annual March for Life rally, the largest ongoing march 
in American history. We have a responsibility, as the elected body 
representing our constituents, to protect the most vulnerable among us 
and ensure that women facing unwanted pregnancies do not face judgment 
or condemnation but have positive support structures and access to 
health care to help them through their pregnancies. This bill is an 
important step in the right direction to protecting life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues on the 
other side to please give me an example where Federal taxpayer dollars 
have been used to pay for an abortion, except with the Hyde amendment 
exceptions.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen), the ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I, too, am against this bill for I am for a 
woman's right to choice. This bill is the second bill that has been 
brought in the last few days to show the Republican side's intent to 
repeal Roe v. Wade. That is what they would like to do: repeal Roe v. 
Wade.
  What is most important is to understand the theater that this bill 
has shown that the majority party has made this historic hallowed hall 
of Congress today.
  Today is the March for Life, lots of pro-lifers here. They wanted to 
give them something, so they scheduled a bill--we could be legislating 
on jobs, on minimum wage, on infrastructure. They wanted to give them 
something, so they came with a bill called ``fetal pain'' to get around 
the viability requirements of the Supreme Court.
  Their caucus found that bill too extreme to get the votes--even their 
caucus. Now, the leadership wouldn't listen to the Democrats of the 
Rules Committee, and it wouldn't listen to the Democrats on the floor, 
and they didn't have the good sense to realize it would make them look 
as they are: antiwoman and out-of-step with reality.
  It took some women and maybe a few men--but mostly women--in their 
caucus to finally go ``no,'' so they brought up a retread of a bill. 
That was a retread too, but they brought up another one, a substitute 
bill, because they had to have something to give as a gift for the 
March for Life pro-life caucus.
  This is theater. This is drama. That is what this has become. A 
woman's right should not be theater; it shouldn't be drama. A woman's 
right should be preserved. If any case, if there is any question about 
them, it should go through regular process, go through committees.
  Let the Members know about the bill with notice, not have, within 72 
hours, a bill brought to this floor. Regular order has been destroyed 
because of theater and messaging, and that is what you are going to see 
for the next 2 years.
  The American people will be very disappointed in this Congress 
because it has become the theater of the absurd.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, however stark Americans' difference of 
opinion can be on the matter of abortion generally, there has been 
long, 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 Committee chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal 
funding of abortions since 1976 when it passed a House and Senate that 
were composed overwhelmingly of Democrat Members.
  It has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for 
over 37 years, supported by Congresses, supported 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. 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 
Representative 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 the use of Federal funds for health benefits 
coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
  As hundreds of thousands of people from across the country come to 
Washington to express their love of unborn children at the annual March 
for Life, it is a marvelous time to reflect on what could be 
accomplished if the bill we consider today were enacted into law.
  During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, probably 
millions and millions of innocent children

[[Page 976]]

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, 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 and the bill before us today would 
continue that legacy permanently.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this vitally important 
legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking 
member of Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, today is a sad day for this institution. 
Late last night, when Republicans failed to garner the votes for one 
extreme antiwomen bill, they flipped a switch and turned to another 
antiwomen bill.
  This attempt to restrict women's access to abortion care is an 
unprecedented, radical assault on women's health care. Tens of 
thousands of women and their families will be harmed by this policy.
  The bill's sponsors claim that this bill simply codifies the Hyde 
amendment, and that is inaccurate. This bill takes unprecedented steps 
far beyond the Hyde amendment.
  This bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can 
spend private dollars in purchasing health insurance, but the bill 
doesn't stop there. It also prohibits Washington, D.C., from using its 
own Medicaid funds to make health care coverage decisions.
  The goal behind this bill is to effectively get rid of all 
comprehensive health care coverage in this country. Anti-choice 
Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
  It is critical that we protect the right of every woman to make her 
own personal and private health care decisions. Women, in consultation 
with their doctors, should remain in control of these choices and not 
Congress.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the pro-life leader in the House 
of Representatives for many years.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pitts so 
very much.
  Madam Speaker, on September 9, 2009, President Obama stood 6 feet 
from where I stand now, right at that podium, and told lawmakers and 
the American public in a specially called joint session of Congress on 
health care reform that ``under our plan, no Federal dollars will be 
used to fund abortion.''
  In an eleventh hour ploy to garner a remnant of pro-life 
congressional Democrats--and they were convinced, and they were 
deceived--needed for passage of ObamaCare legislation, the President 
issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, and it said, in pertinent 
part: ``The act maintains current Hyde amendment restrictions governing 
abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly-created health 
insurance exchanges.'' That is absolutely, I say to my friends, untrue.
  Despite an appalling degree of nontransparency, we finally asked the 
Government Accountability Office to look into it. Last September, they 
came back and said 1,036 ObamaCare exchange plans covered abortion on 
demand. GAO also found that a separate billing of the abortion 
surcharge required by the act is not being enforced by the 
administration, and the abortion funding premium, again, in 2015 is 
being illegally rolled into the total plan costs.
  Health care consumers are, therefore, unaware when they buy their 
health insurance whether or not they are paying for abortion on demand. 
If the Hyde amendment had been applied to ObamaCare, the number of 
ObamaCare plans covering abortion on demand would be zero.
  At its core--I believe my colleagues should know this by now, some 
don't on this side of the aisle and some on that do--the Hyde amendment 
has two indisputable parts. It prohibits direct funding for abortion 
and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion, except in 
the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  ObamaCare violates the Hyde amendment by funding insurance plans that 
pay for abortion on demand. H.R. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals: 
make the Hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions 
current--and that includes the D.C. rider permanent; ensure that the 
Affordable Care Act faithfully conforms with the Hyde amendment, as 
promised by the President of the United States; and provide full 
disclosure, transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which 
any health insurance plan funds abortion on the exchanges.
  Last January, the House passed H.R. 7 by a vote of 227-188. It 
languished in the Senate for a year--never took it up. This is the same 
bill. It has been through regular order. Hearings have been held, as 
well as markup.
  The American people, Madam Speaker, strongly oppose taxpayer funding 
for abortion. The Marist poll that was just released yesterday found 
that 68 percent of all respondents oppose using taxpayer funding for 
abortion, and a whopping 69 percent of women are against taxpayer 
funding for abortion, and 71 percent of the millennials are against 
taxpayer funding for abortion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend.
  We live in an age of ultrasound imaging, the ultimate window to the 
womb and the child, that precious child, who resides there. We are in 
the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign 
interventions designed to diagnose, treat, and cure the precious lives 
of these children.
  Abortion is antithetical to that. It dismembers, chemically poisons, 
shots to the heart, to stop the heart from beating. As you know--and I 
know my friend from New York is next to speak--at testimony before your 
committee, Dr. Levatino said--and he is an abortionist--he said the 
baby can be in any position in the uterus.
  You just reach in with a Sopher clamp and grasp whatever you can. You 
pull out an arm, he went on to say. You pull out and reach in again and 
again, and you tear out the spine, intestine, heart, and lungs.
  These are gruesome procedures. That is what abortion is all about: 
the dismemberment and chemical poisoning of children.
  H.R. 7 will save lives. There is no doubt about that. The Hyde 
amendment--I remember when Henry Hyde was told that 1 million, maybe 
even more than 1 million children have survived because of the Hyde 
amendment.
  Tears came down his face, knowing that those kids are now in the 
world, going to school, having their own families, playing soccer, and 
doing other great things.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that they should direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished senior member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  The name of the bill is a lie. There is now no taxpayer funding for 
abortions. I wish there were. The right of a woman to decide whether to 
become pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy, or even to make 
the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the 
Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a State 
may place an undue burden on that right. Denial of Medicaid or other 
government funding that would be available

[[Page 977]]

for other medical procedures should be considered an undue burden, but 
that is not the law, unfortunately. Taxpayer funding of abortion is 
prohibited by the Hyde amendment.
  This bill goes far beyond that. This bill for the first time ever 
denies tax deductions and credits for women who use their own money to 
pay for abortions or to purchase insurance that covers abortions. In so 
doing, the Republican majority increases taxes for women and families.
  This bill for the first time denies the itemized medical tax 
deduction that is otherwise available for medical expenses if the 
medical expense is for an abortion.
  This bill for the first time treats as taxable income any 
distribution from a flexible spending account or health savings account 
that is used to pay for abortion expenses.
  This bill for the first time denies small employers the ability to 
use tax credits to help them to provide health coverage for their 
employees if that coverage includes abortion.
  This bill also denies income-eligible women the use of premium tax 
credits available under the Affordable Care Act if the insurance 
coverage they select includes abortion coverage.
  In first opposing and then voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
50 times, my Republican colleagues have complained that government 
should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health 
care choices, but this legislation obviously is designed to do just 
that.
  It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom, provided no one 
uses that freedom in the way they do not approve. That is a strange 
understanding of freedom.
  Even more stunning, this bill increases taxes on families, 
businesses, and the self-employed if they spend their own money--let me 
repeat that--their own money on abortion coverage or services, and this 
tax increase is being championed by Republicans, all of whom have taken 
a pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses.
  The intent of the bill is clear. It is to end insurance coverage for 
abortions for all women, whether or not they obtain their insurance on 
an exchange, and even if they use their own money to purchase the 
insurance.

                              {time}  1145

  My colleagues in the majority believe that, if you like your 
insurance coverage, you should get to keep it unless it is for choices 
that they don't like. Then they have no qualms about taking your 
insurance coverage away. That is the intended and likely result of this 
bill.
  Currently, the vast majority of insurance policies cover abortion 
services, but insurance companies will likely respond to the tax 
penalties this bill imposes by dropping the coverage of abortions from 
all of their plans. This will have a significant effect on all women, 
not just on lower income women, who have long felt the brunt of Federal 
restrictions on their health care choices.
  H.R. 7 is a radical departure from the current tax treatment of 
medical expenses and insurance coverage, and it is neither justifiable 
nor necessary to prevent the Federal funding of abortion. It is a 
frontal assault on the liberty and dignity of all American women. It 
should be roundly rejected.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, the Hyde language does not apply to 
ObamaCare. There is not one sentence in this 2,700-page bill. Read the 
bill. It applies to Medicaid and to annually appropriated programs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, one of the things that people 
seem to forget here is that ObamaCare both authorizes and appropriates 
the money so that it is outside the purview of the HHS appropriations 
bill. That is why this legislation is needed. The President promised he 
would apply the Hyde amendment, but he has not.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), another champion of life.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
  Madam Speaker, we know from science that everyone's life begins at 
conception. The right to life is God-given and is described in our 
Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable,'' which means something 
that cannot be taken away. I defend, Madam Speaker, the right to life 
of everyone in this country and of everyone in this Chamber, even of 
those opposed to this legislation.
  This bill helps promote a culture of life. It reflects the 
overwhelming opinion held by Americans that taxpayer dollars should not 
be used to pay for abortion. It also holds President Obama accountable 
for another one of his broken promises, when he assured us that his 
health care law would not allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion.
  We know, Madam Speaker, from a September 15, 2014, GAO report on 
health insurance exchanges that tax dollars are paying for more than 
1,000 ObamaCare plans that cover elective abortions. This bill stops 
that. I insert the GAO report into the Congressional Record.

    [From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sept. 15, 2014]

 Congressional Requesters--Health Insurance Exchanges: Coverage of Non-
          excepted Abortion Services by Qualified Health Plans

       The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 
     requires the establishment in all states of health insurance 
     exchanges--marketplaces where eligible individuals may 
     compare and select among insurance plans offered by 
     participating private issuers of health coverage. PPACA 
     requires the insurance plans offered under an exchange, known 
     as qualified health plans (QHP), to provide a package of 
     essential health benefits--including coverage for specific 
     service categories, such as ambulatory care, prescription 
     drugs, and hospitalization. In addition to these categories 
     states may require or restrict coverage of other benefits by 
     QHPs. Consistent with federal and state law, QHPs may cover 
     other benefits, such as abortion services.
       PPACA prohibits the use of federal funds made available to 
     offset the cost of QHP coverage--that is, income-based tax 
     credits and subsidies--to pay for ``non-excepted abortion 
     services,'' which, based on the law applicable to the 2014 
     benefit year, are abortion services performed except where 
     the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or 
     the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an 
     abortion is performed. While QHPs may cover non-excepted 
     abortion services, PPACA places requirements on the provision 
     of such coverage. These include the requirement to estimate 
     the cost of coverage of such services, at an amount of no 
     less than $1 per enrollee, per month, and to collect from 
     each enrollee an amount equal to the actuarial value of the 
     coverage--segregated from any other premium amounts collected 
     by the QHP--to be used to pay for the costs associated with 
     providing non-excepted abortion services. In addition, PPACA 
     directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract 
     with issuers to offer at least two multi-state QHPs in each 
     state, at least one of which does not cover non-excepted 
     abortion services.
       There are 23 states with laws restricting the circumstances 
     under which QHPs may provide non-excepted abortion services 
     as a covered benefit in 2014, and 28 states with no such 
     laws. Among the 23 states with restrictions, 17 have laws 
     that do not permit the coverage of non-excepted abortion 
     services by QHPs, and 6 states permit the coverage of non-
     excepted abortion services only in limited circumstances, 
     such as to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of 
     a pregnant woman's major bodily function.
       You asked that we provide a list of QHPs that do and that 
     do not cover abortion services and for additional information 
     on issues related to that coverage. This report describes 
     whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs 
     within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage 
     for the 2014 benefit year, and provides additional 
     information--such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted 
     abortion services coverage--for selected QHPs that cover such 
     services.
       To obtain the information we present here, we contacted 
     every state to determine whether states had laws restricting 
     the circumstances under which abortion services may be 
     provided as a covered benefit by QHPs in 2014. Based on our 
     review of those laws and relevant federal laws and 
     regulations, we determined that 23 states have laws 
     restricting the circumstances under which non-excepted 
     abortion services may be provided as a covered benefit by 
     QHPs for the

[[Page 978]]

     2014 benefit year. In order to report on whether non-excepted 
     abortion services are covered by QHPs within the 28 states 
     with no laws restricting such coverage in 2014, we obtained 
     data on QHPs' coverage of non-excepted abortion services from 
     the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), within 
     the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency 
     responsible for overseeing the establishment of health 
     insurance exchanges; private issuers of QHPs; state 
     departments of insurance and state exchange organizations; 
     and from officials at OPM. While these data sources have 
     different characteristics and limitations, we have determined 
     that, when taken together, they are reliable for the purpose 
     of indentifying which QHPs do and which do not provide non-
     excepted abortion services coverage in 2014 within the 28 
     states with no laws restricting such coverage. To provide 
     additional information regarding non-excepted abortion 
     services for selected QHPs that cover such services, we 
     interviewed and collected documentation from a non-
     probability sample of 18 issuers about the QHPs they offer in 
     10 states. Our criteria for selecting these issuers included 
     states with no laws restricting non-excepted abortion 
     services coverage organized by CMS region, state uninsured 
     population, and number of issuers covering non-excepted 
     abortion services. These 18 issuers accounted for nearly one-
     quarter of QHPs that covered non-excepted abortion services 
     and were offered within the 28 states.
       We conducted our work from February 2014 to September 2014 
     in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance 
     Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework 
     requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain 
     sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated 
     objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 
     believe that the information and data obtained, and the 
     analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any 
     findings and conclusions in this product.


                                Results

       1. Which QHPs participating in health insurance exchanges 
     provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit, 
     and which do not?
       Within the 28 states with no laws restricting the 
     circumstances under which QHPs may provide non-excepted 
     abortion services as a covered benefit in 2014:
       --in 5 states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode 
     Island, and Vermont), all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion 
     services;
       --in 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the 
     District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, 
     Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, 
     and Washington), some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion 
     services; and
       --in 8 states (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, 
     New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming), no QHPs cover 
     non-excepted abortion services.
       Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non-
     excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not.
       2. For selected QHPs, what is the scope of the non-excepted 
     abortion services benefits that are provided?
       Of the 18 issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted 
     abortion services from which we obtained information, all but 
     three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to 
     any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. One issuer told 
     us that it only covers services for a ``therapeutic 
     abortion,'' which a health care provider determines to be 
     medically necessary. Two issuers that offered QHPs in New 
     York indicated that, consistent with requirements set by the 
     state-based exchange, they impose a limit of one non-excepted 
     abortion treatment per year. However, one of these two 
     issuers indicated they also offer QHPs that were not subject 
     to this restriction. All 18 issuers also indicated that their 
     abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements 
     as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs--
     including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance--and prior 
     authorization, all of which can vary depending on the 
     location where the service is provided. For example, issuers 
     indicated that if this service is provided in an outpatient 
     setting--which one issuer noted is the typical location--
     enrollees are not required to request prior authorization, 
     similar to any other service performed in an outpatient 
     setting. Additionally, if performed in an inpatient setting, 
     the service would require prior authorization, similar to any 
     other service performed in such a setting. Issuers indicated 
     that this benefit is described in member materials where 
     other covered benefits are listed.
       3. For selected QHPs, how do issuers estimate the cost of 
     non-excepted abortion services coverage, what is this cost, 
     and how are enrollees billed for this coverage?
       To estimate the cost of covering non-excepted abortion 
     services, issuers we contacted indicated that they generally 
     reviewed historical costs for these procedures, similar to 
     the approach used to estimate the actuarial value of the 
     premium attributable to the cost of other covered benefits. 
     All but one of the issuers from which we obtained information 
     estimated the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion 
     services to be less than $1 per enrollee, per month. For 
     example, officials from one issuer told us that their 
     actuaries estimated that the cost for non-excepted abortion 
     services ranged between 10 cents and 20 cents per enrollee, 
     per month, calculated across multiple states, while officials 
     with another issuer said that the cost for these services 
     ranged from 10 cents to 70 cents per enrollee, per month. All 
     but two of the issuers that estimated the cost to be less 
     than $1 indicated they rounded the amount up to comply with 
     PPACA's requirement that the cost of such coverage be 
     estimated at no less than $1 per enrollee, per month. The 
     other two issuers noted that they did not round up the amount 
     to the statutory minimum of $1 and, therefore, were not using 
     this statutory minimum as a basis for determining premium 
     amounts to collect from enrollees for non-excepted abortion 
     services. The highest cost estimated by the issuers we 
     interviewed was $1.10 per enrollee, per month. For several of 
     the issuers we contacted, the premium amount associated with 
     non-excepted abortion services coverage was reported to also 
     be $1; however, for other issuers the premium amount varied 
     from the cost issuers estimated for this coverage. For 
     example, the issuer that estimated the cost of coverage of 
     non-excepted abortion services at $1.10 per enrollee, per 
     month, indicated that when adjusted to a paid cost based upon 
     plan design and administrative expenses, the premium amount 
     collected from enrollees ranged from 51 cents to $1.46, 
     depending on the specific QHP.
       Fifteen issuers and the Washington Health Benefit 
     Exchange--which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers offering 
     QHPs in the state-based exchange, including for 2 of the 18 
     issuers from which we obtained information--did not itemize 
     the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion 
     services coverage on enrollees' bills nor indicate that they 
     send a separate bill for that premium amount. Officials from 
     the remaining issuer from which we obtained information told 
     us that their bills indicate that there is a $1 charge ``for 
     coverage of services for which member subsidies may not be 
     used.''
       4. For selected QHPs, how are consumers shopping for QHPs 
     able to determine whether non-excepted abortion services are 
     covered?
       PPACA does not establish any requirements on whether or how 
     information about non-excepted abortion services should be 
     made available to consumers before they enroll in QHPs, 
     though six of the issuers we contacted indicated that they 
     made available such information about coverage for abortion 
     services--which they stated includes both excepted and non-
     excepted abortion services--to consumers shopping for QHPs. 
     These issuers indicated that there are various ways consumers 
     may determine if their QHPs provide coverage for abortion 
     services before they enroll. For example, issuers said that 
     QHP materials--such as their summary of benefits and coverage 
     or member policies, such as the Evidence of Coverage 
     document--indicate that abortion services are covered, and 
     these materials are available to consumers shopping for QHPs 
     through the issuer's website or through the exchange's 
     website. Specifically, officials with one issuer informed us 
     that their Evidence of Coverage document, which provides 
     details about the features of their QHPs, was available 
     through the state-based exchange and the benefit--``voluntary 
     termination of pregnancy''--is identified in that document 
     under ``Family Planning Services.'' Eleven issuers indicated 
     that consumers shopping for QHPs do not have access to such 
     information; some of these issuers indicated that consumers 
     would need to call the issuer directly before enrolling to 
     determine whether a QHP provides coverage for abortion 
     services.
       PPACA requires that QHP issuers providing non-excepted 
     abortion services coverage notify enrollees at the time of 
     enrollment that those services are covered. While most 
     issuers from which we collected information indicated they 
     were notifying enrollees that abortion services were provided 
     as a covered benefit, four issuers indicated they were not 
     disclosing this information to enrollees. Officials with two 
     of these four issuers told us they had only recently become 
     aware of this requirement, and were in the process of 
     updating their enrollee materials to come into compliance 
     with the notification requirement. Officials with the other 
     two issuers, both of which offered QHPs in the same state, 
     told us that they are not providing enrollees with 
     notification of the coverage of non-excepted abortion 
     services at the time of enrollment. These officials said that 
     they use model plan materials developed by the state that do 
     not specifically indicate that non-excepted abortion services 
     are a covered benefit, and that such information would only 
     be provided upon enrollee request.

  Mr. ROTHFUS. As hundreds of thousands march today on the anniversary 
of the Roe v. Wade decision, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
committing to defend the sanctity of life and vote ``yes'' on this 
bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished senior 
member of the Judiciary Committee.

[[Page 979]]


  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for her courage.
  Madam Speaker, I stand here today, refusing to surrender on behalf of 
millions of women of all economic backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and 
religions who rely upon the Supreme Court of the United States, which, 
under the Ninth Amendment, has indicated that Roe v. Wade--the right to 
choose--is a viable and important law of the land. How can we undermine 
the Constitution in its premise and its articulation?
  Today, very quickly, let me say that I know there are millions who 
are here to disagree with me. I respect that disagreement, but I am 
saddened that we would take advantage of this day to misrepresent the 
law and pass a law that will do damage to millions of Americans.
  This is the face of Republican women, who, in essence, decided that 
H.R. 36 was too extreme. Even Republican men said that they could not 
vote on a bill that caused or asked women to report a rape before they 
would be able to benefit from an abortion. How sad, in the trauma of 
rape, that you must require someone to go to the police department 
before she could get assistance. That bill was pulled. That extreme 
bill was pulled.
  In order not to leave us without dramatics, we come again to do what 
is hurting millions of women in Texas--where they cannot even get 
health services because of the laws passed in Texas, which completely 
shut down good health care clinics that deal in abortion and other 
women's services for health care--with this dastardly law about 
requiring those clinics to be within a certain mileage of hospitals, 
with their never having any problem before.
  Now we come with another masquerade in H.R. 7, which prohibits 
Federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage which 
includes the coverage of abortion, making permanent already existing 
Federal policies, prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in any health 
care service furnished by Federal or the District of Columbia health 
care--again, interfering with the women in the District of Columbia--
and prohibiting individuals from receiving refundable Federal tax 
credits--individuals interfering with private health insurance.
  Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote 
against it. It undermines the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 
7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the 
underlying bill.
  I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women 
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of 
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the 
American people.
  A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating 
the Rights of Women Act of 2015''!
  Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across 
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have 
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and 
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate 
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the 
Clinton Administration.
  We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to 
$10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do 
not have raise their families in poverty.
  A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed 
job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every 
person looking to make a new start in life.
  Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for 
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing 
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's 
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
  Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating 
irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and 
have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
  The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when 
the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a 
year ago.
  The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in 
H.R. 7, which would:
  1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits 
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent 
existing federal policies.)
  2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service 
furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or 
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government 
or the District.
  3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.
  4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax 
credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified 
health plan that includes coverage for abortions.
  5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health 
insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or 
benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.
  If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses 
with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would 
be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance 
even more expensive.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion 
coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees 
pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.
  If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private 
health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that 
coverage is paid for from private funds.
  This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies 
dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to 
affordable, comprehensive health care.
  Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through 
employers cover abortion.
  If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health 
insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on 
these policy holders would increase significantly.
  H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer 
their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a 
significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would 
no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and 
deductions for the cost of their health care.
  For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover 
abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax 
Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--
threatening 4 million small businesses.
  Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their 
comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be 
denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.
  H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by 
restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.
  The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used 
for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and 
health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's 
life in danger.
  H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even 
further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in 
the Hyde Amendment.
  When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President 
issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used 
for abortion services.''
  This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established 
under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the 
future of women's reproductive health in this country because it 
includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have 
never received a hearing or a mark-up.
  These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state 
health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans 
mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the 
health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display 
that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or 
information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the 
same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead 
consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.
  As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance 
plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used 
for abortion services from all other funds.

[[Page 980]]

  In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process 
of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover 
abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost 
of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.
  H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this 
practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and 
identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.
  By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as 
though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, 
when in fact it is not.
  Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and 
possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive 
freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of 
American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in 
Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability.
  This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a 
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move 
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to 
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 
22-week point.
  There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would 
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be 
able to eat on its own.
  H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered 
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from 
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of 
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and 
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an 
abortion.
  Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right 
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.
  These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in 
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life 
of the mother.
  H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, 
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back 
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a 
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to 
protect her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a 
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of 
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the 
determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 
(1979).
  The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right 
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even 
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
  The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must 
be defeated.
  I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
bill. H.R. 7 should be pulled off of this floor!
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain 
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' In the last Congress, I opposed 
this irresponsible and reckless legislation.
  I opposed the bill, which arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising 
her constitutionally protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy 
after 20 weeks, last year for the same reasons I do now. This purely 
partisan and divisive legislation:
  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. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, unfairly 
targeted the District of Columbia; and
  4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and 
protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, in 2010, Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care 
after 20 weeks. Since then 10 more red states--Alabama, Arizona, 
Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and 
Oklahoma--have enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate 
health exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or 
incest.
  H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy of these 
states and make it the law of the land. In so doing, 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.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of 
abortions that occur after 20 weeks.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born 
with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to 
move limbs.
  In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the 
face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-
week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's 
baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby 
would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to 
terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. 
Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that 
followed. Eight days later, Danielle gave birth to a daughter, 
Elizabeth, who died 15 minutes later.
   H.R. 36 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. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was 
protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health 
and her ability to have children in the future was preserved.
  Madam Speaker, 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.
  That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly 
opposes 20- week bans, citing the threat these laws pose to women's 
health.
  Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the 
necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In 
fact, the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our 
colleague, Congressman Nadler, which would have added a ``health of the 
mother'' exception to the bill.
  Madam Speaker, this may come as news to some in this body, but each 
year approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as 
a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women 
under age 18!
  Madam Speaker, last and most important, I oppose H.R. 36 because it 
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.
  Late Wednesday night because of how absurd H.R. 36 was--it was pulled 
from the floor.
  By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-
fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long 
standing constitutional rule.
  In striking down Texas's pre-viability abortion prohibitions, the 
Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade:

       With respect to the State's important and legitimate 
     interest in potential life, the `compelling' point is at 
     viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has 
     the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. 
     State regulation protective of fetal life after viability 
     thus has both logical and biological justification. If the 
     State

[[Page 981]]

     is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it 
     may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period, 
     except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of 
     the mother.

  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). NOT can the government restrict a woman's autonomy by 
arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to 
effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with 
the bill before us.
  If this bill ever were to become law, it would not survive a 
constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20-week 
provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as 
unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th 
Circuit because it ``unduly burden[ed] a woman's right to choose to 
abort a nonviable fetus.'' Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 
(10th Cir. 1996). And just last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a 
20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been 
``unalterably clear'' that ``a woman has a constitutional right to 
choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.'' 
Isaacson v. Horne, F.3d, No. 12-16670, 2013 WL 2160171, at *1 (9th Cir. 
May 21, 2013).
  Madam Speaker, 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.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio, Steve Chabot, another pro-life champion and the 
principal sponsor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, a little while ago, a number of my colleagues from the 
other side of the aisle came down and made, I believe, the ludicrous 
allegation that this bill is somehow an attack on women's health care, 
and, therefore, we ought to be spending time on the infrastructure and 
on a whole range of issues.
  If you want to talk about an attack on women's health care, it is 
called ``ObamaCare.'' It is an attack on the health care of women and 
men and children in this country--deductibles up, premiums up, the 
quality of health care down. Most of the folks who came down to the 
mike--I can't say all of them. I think probably all of them if they 
were here--voted for ObamaCare, and the American people are having to 
live with the results of that. Now, that is an attack on the health 
care of American women.
  This legislation simply says that there ought not to be taxpayer 
dollars going to pay for abortions in this country, that one person 
shouldn't have to pay for the abortion of another person whether it is 
on moral grounds, conscience, or one's religion. You shouldn't make one 
person pay for another person's abortion. It is pretty simple, and the 
American people overwhelmingly agree with that point of view. That is 
what this legislation is about. It is in ObamaCare as well. It is the 
same thing. Through insurance or otherwise, you shouldn't force one 
person to pay for another person's abortion because one is opposed to 
it.
  Today happens to be a day that is important to me. It is the day I 
was born. It is my birthday. It also happens to be the date that, I 
would say, the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade came down. My birthday 
was in 1953, and this was in 1973 that Roe came down. On this day, I 
can't help but think of those millions and millions and millions of 
Americans who do not exist today because of that decision.
  This, obviously, is related to that, but it is mostly about the 
choice that a person has to make; and if she makes that choice, should 
somebody else have to pay for it? The law says ``no.'' I agree with the 
law. Support this bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, once again, women's rights 
are being attacked on the floor of the House. A decision about health 
that should be made by a woman and her doctor is, instead, being made 
by politicians with an agenda. Despite their claims of acting for the 
sake of women's health, this draconian bill would deny women access to 
medical care and drive out abortion coverage from private health plans 
once and for all.
  What would be the effect?
  Women would be denied access to abortion, especially low-income and 
minority women who are buying health insurance through the marketplace. 
For some, they will be sent back to the days before Roe v. Wade, when 
women who were desperate for help were driven to unlicensed doctors and 
unsanitary conditions, often suffering infections, hemorrhages, and, at 
times, death.
  We should not be in the business of endangering women's health and 
safety. This is why, yesterday, I introduced the Women's Health 
Protection Act. It would prevent States from restricting access to 
abortion if they cannot demonstrate an actual benefit to women's 
health. Personal medical decisions belong solely to the people they 
impact and to the medical professionals they trust. We must oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black, another pro-life spokesperson.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, today is a somber occasion. On this 42nd 
anniversary of the Supreme Court's tragic decision in Roe v. Wade, our 
hearts ache for the 56 million unborn lives that have been lost due to 
this shameful practice of abortion.
  But, today, there is hope because we have an opportunity to make a 
difference by passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This 
commonsense, compassionate legislation will protect Americans' 
conscience rights by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are 
not used to fund the destruction of a human life.
  As a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse for over 40 years, this 
measure is especially meaningful to me. During my years in the health 
care industry, I saw the joy in young parents' eyes when they met their 
newborn children for the very first time; I held the hands of grieving 
spouses and children as they said their final good-byes to loved ones; 
and, sadly, I witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects 
of a botched abortion.
  These experiences informed my view that all life is a precious gift 
from God, and I pray that, in time, this truth will be reflected in our 
Nation's laws; but, until then, can't we at least do this much?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion, and I 
thank the sponsor for his work on this deeply important legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill falsely 
advertised as pro-family and supporting American values.
  If they actually care about defending the values of our Nation and of 
the well-being of American families, I ask my colleagues across the 
aisle to offer legislation that reflects the priorities of American 
families instead of debating a bill that the Republican leadership just 
threw on the calendar at the last minute because their original 
abortion bill was too extreme, even for them.
  Today, we should be discussing ways to ensure every woman can put 
food on the table by raising the minimum wage, like 29 States have 
done, and by passing equal pay for women. We should be discussing how 
to ensure that every person who dreams of a higher education has access 
to it by working with President Obama on his community college 
proposal. We should be discussing legislation to allow 43 million 
workers to take time off when they are sick and to make sure parents 
can take time off with their new babies.
  These are the family-centered priorities that reflect our values as a 
nation, and these are, certainly, the challenges that my constituents 
in south

[[Page 982]]

Florida sent me here to tackle. Instead, we are debating a bill with an 
underlying principle that has already been codified.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that a regressive 
policy of banning taxpayer funding for abortion, which only serves to 
punish our Nation's poor and most vulnerable women, already exists. As 
the President said Tuesday night, while we may not agree on choice, we 
can at least agree that the best people to make these decisions for 
women are not politicians. Building on the zeal to interfere in the 
health decisions of women, this bill goes even further by tying a 
woman's health options to her income.
  A strong majority of Americans agree, including 62 percent who 
identify as Republicans, that abortion is the wrong issue for Congress 
to be spending its time on. I agree with them. When my colleagues are 
prepared to work on legislation that truly addresses the concerns of 
the American people, we stand ready to work with them.
  Listen to your Members who sounded the alarm bell on the original 
bill that was pulled off this floor, and get your priorities straight.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Kevin McCarthy, our distinguished 
majority leader in this Congress.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today, taking a step forward towards a 
simple goal--to save innocent lives from abortion and to make sure no 
woman ever has to make that decision to end the life of her child. We 
all know that this is more than just some debate or social 
disagreement. These are human beings we are talking about.

                              {time}  1200

  This is about pregnant mothers facing hardship and tough choices. It 
is about a culture of telling people that human life is expendable. But 
most importantly, this is about human beings--more than 56 million 
children since Roe v. Wade--who have been denied a chance to live. We 
are here today for them, to make sure every person has the most 
fundamental right of all: the right to life.
  Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and during the March for 
Life, the House will vote on a bill to stop all Federal funding from 
being used to pay for abortion. At the very least, the American people 
should never be forced to pay for abortions or abortion coverage with 
their tax dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the hundreds of thousands of 
people out on The Mall right now by voting for this bill. Stand up and 
commit to creating an America that values every life, especially the 
lives of innocents who cannot stand up for themselves.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) for yielding and for her advocacy and work on this issue.
  Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which changed history for 
women in America by allowing them to control their own bodies, I rise 
against the effort to roll back these rights.
  Though we have come a long way in the last 42 years, some politicians 
want to undo this progress and restrict access to critical medical 
procedures women may need. Why have we been debating whether the 
government should seize control over women's health decisions when the 
American people want us to work together to create good-paying jobs, 
balance the budget, and raise the minimum wage? Instead, this Chamber 
is wasting time with a divisive argument about whether the government 
should jeopardize a woman's access to medically necessary procedures.
  Politicians are not medical experts, and we should not deny a woman 
the ability to make her own decisions with those she trusts the most. I 
ask my colleagues to focus on the economy instead of spending time on 
bills that divide this House and this country.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his leadership on this very, very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of life. Today is a very 
joyous and hopeful day on what is a very sad anniversary. Today is the 
42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Hundreds of 
thousands of pro-life advocates from across the country, and many from 
my own hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, will be on The Mall as we march 
in honor of the over 56 million precious angels we have lost over the 
last 42 years.
  Madam Speaker, I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe that life 
begins at conception, and that every life is a gift.
  There is an area where most Americans agree and where elected 
officials should all come together, and that is on the Federal funding 
of abortion. The majority of Americans do not want their hard-earned 
tax dollars going to pay for abortions, and Congress has consistently 
worked together over the years by attaching the Hyde amendment to 
appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer funds from going towards 
abortions.
  That is why I am proud to cosponsor and support H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure 
Act. There is no more appropriate day than today to consider such 
important legislation.
  This bill does exactly what the name implies. It permanently ensures 
that no taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. 
This bill codifies the Hyde amendment and also addresses taxpayer 
funding for abortion that, unfortunately, the Hyde amendment does not 
cover.
  For example, ObamaCare expressly allows funding for plans that 
include abortion 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. It was yet 
again another broken promise.
  However, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act not only prevents 
taxpayer funding for abortion under ObamaCare, it also requires 
transparency to ensure the consumers are fully informed about which 
plans on the exchanges contain abortion coverage and surcharges.
  Madam Speaker, throughout my life I have worked to draw attention to 
the pro-life movement--to change hearts and minds and to approach this 
issue with love and compassion. I will continue to work throughout my 
time in Congress towards the day when abortion is not only illegal but 
abortion is unthinkable.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
important legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Madam Speaker, I want to first say to the other side of the aisle 
that I am grateful that some members of your caucus recognized that 
indeed extremism on this issue has got to come to an end and that you 
took steps to roll back the ridiculous bill that you had intended to 
bring up today but didn't have the votes for because they spoke up. And 
I am grateful to them.
  In some respects, you look around this room and you think, Is this a 
Chamber of Congress or is this a doctor's office? We might as well have 
stethoscopes, stirrups, and speculums here because that is what you are 
doing. You are trying to come between a woman and her physician.
  There is a lot of hoopla today because this is the anniversary of Roe 
v. Wade, and this is a messaging bill, so we are here messaging. Roe v. 
Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of 
America, and when each of us became Members of this body this month, we 
swore that we would uphold the Constitution of the United States. But 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend hours and hours 
wringing hands, trying to somehow find ways to undo constitutional 
decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[[Page 983]]

  So we are here having yet another debate when American women in this 
country are far more interested in equal pay for equal work, paid sick 
leave, a child care tax credit that has some resemblance to what 
reality is in this country. But rather, we will continue to act like 
doctors here.
  And I might add there are even some hypocrites on the other side of 
the aisle who have counseled their own girlfriends to have abortions. 
It is legal, Members. We have a right to maintain this legality.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another eloquent 
pro-life force.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today, I am glad to be a Californian who is in favor 
of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Indeed, we have heard some interesting debate on this today, 
deflecting issues like higher pay or building more infrastructure, 
which we desperately need in California, as well as the water supply, 
and even entering the word ``child care'' in when we are talking about 
paying for abortions. Interesting. Even words like ``access.'' Well, 
abortion has been certainly accessible for 42 years, millions of times.
  The central point is, Are the taxpayers going to be compelled to pay 
for it? Are the American people out there--those 68 percent, in the 
latest poll--going to be compelled to pay for something?
  Jefferson said:

       To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the 
     propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and 
     tyrannical.

  People who are pro-life, as well as many that are pro-choice, might 
agree with the idea that abortion should be available--on the pro-
choice side. But many, many disagree, a supermajority. The number of 
people who disagree with this would override a veto in these two Houses 
in the Capitol.
  Yet what we are finding in my own State of California is an 
interpretation of ObamaCare--which is one of those job-killing, non-
infrastructure building items that is hurting our economy in California 
and in this country--where we are being compelled, whether you are a 
church or religious charity, employer or individual, to have included 
in your insurance plans these provisions paying for abortions.
  Where is the freedom in that? Where is the conscientious objection to 
that? Where is the freedom of expression that I hear a lot from the 
other side of the aisle--until recent years? Our First Amendment?
  This bureaucratic mandate, which includes their opinion on what it 
would be under ObamaCare, largely done quietly, in the middle of the 
night, out of the public eye, is now being put on Californians. We need 
to send the message back that Californians should not be compelled to 
have to provide this in their coverage.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I feel compelled to point out, after listening to the 
debate and the hyperbole, the passionate thoughts of what a high 
priority this is for the Republican leadership to bring this bill to 
the floor--such a high priority that they didn't think about it until 
late last night. They didn't bring it to committee. They rushed it to 
the floor without having even thought of this legislation until late 
last night. Such a high priority. We know, the American people know, 
this is political theater.
  In listening to the debate, it is also quite revealing in listening 
to some of the comments made that this is not about taxpayer funding 
for the health care choices that American women legally have and the 
Constitution supports and that the Supreme Court clarified 42 years 
ago, but it is about preventing women from making that choice in the 
first place. That is a choice that ought to be made by women, by 
themselves, in consultation with their health care provider, and not by 
Members of Congress.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, might I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Is there any way to make an anti-women, anti-health, anti-choice bill 
worse? Sure there is. Add a provision that keeps a local jurisdiction--
the District of Columbia--from spending its own local funds on abortion 
services for poor women, exactly as 17 States of the Union do. 
Americans will ask: How on Earth can you do that in this country? 
Laughably--by declaring the District of Columbia government to be a 
virtual Federal agency.
  This bill hurts millions of women across the country who have a 
constitutional right to make choices about their own health. It 
compounds that discrimination by violating the oldest American 
principle--local control of local funds.
  The Senate has repeatedly rejected this bill, and I expect them to 
have the good sense to repeat that rejection.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today on the 
42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 
support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This vital 
bill establishes that no taxpayer funds be used for abortion, including 
plans that cover abortion under the President's health care law.
  These restrictions will save lives. According to the research by the 
Guttmacher Institute, policies that cut taxpayer funds towards abortion 
will actually prevent 25 percent or more of the abortions that would 
otherwise take place.
  Furthermore, recent polling has demonstrated that the American public 
is widely opposed to taxpayer funds for abortion. According to a Marist 
poll released in January of this year, 68 percent of the respondents 
opposed taxpayer funds for abortion. A CNN poll from last year shows 
that 56 percent of respondents oppose public funding for abortion.
  As a mother of four, I know personally how precious the gift of human 
life is and how important it is to honor that gift. As legislators, it 
is both our job and responsibility to protect the innocent lives of the 
unborn and to serve as a voice for those who do not yet have one.
  Today, the U.S. House has a historic opportunity to put an end to the 
use of taxpayer funding for abortion. In drafting the Virginia Statute 
for Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson so wisely penned: ``To compel a 
man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions 
in which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.''
  Madam Speaker, I emphatically agree.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), one of our 
distinguished new Members.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, absolutely outrageous, that is what 
Republicans' attempt to repeal Roe v. Wade on its 42nd anniversary is, 
absolutely outrageous.
  A blatant attack on women and their families, their first attempt, 
H.R. 36, failed because women of both parties spoke out to let our male 
Republican colleagues know they have gone too far.
  The women of this House know that a woman cannot call herself free 
who does not own or control her own body. We are free, Madam Speaker.
  Here we go again, H.R. 7, another attempt to attack women's rights. 
It especially impacts women of color--not on my watch.

[[Page 984]]

  Women of the House, let's do it again. Let's prevent this legislation 
from moving forward, and let's vote ``no.''
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, abortion is not health care. It is a brutal procedure 
that ends the lives of unborn children through suction, dismemberment, 
decapitation, or chemical poison. It is the most violent form of death 
known to mankind.
  As Frederica Mathewes-Green, former chair of the Feminists for Life, 
said:

       Abortion breaks a mother's heart.

  She said:

       There are always two victims in an abortion. One is the 
     baby, and one is the mother; one is dead, one is wounded.

  Madam Speaker, this human rights abuse should not be paid for or 
encouraged by government taxpayer money. The women in the Silent No 
More Awareness Campaign and the women in Operation Outcry point out 
that abortion not only takes the lives of the unborn child, it wounds 
all the mothers. We should keep this in mind.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my good friend, Diana, 
for her leadership on this issue and for so many other important issues 
and for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, despite the rhetoric we have heard from our Republican 
colleagues about their commitment to focusing, laserlike, on what the 
American people care about most--creating jobs and accelerating 
economic growth--the only thing that they have accelerated in this new 
Congress is their attacks on a woman's constitutional rights.
  In just their first 7 days in office, our Republican colleagues have 
introduced six anti-choice bills and brought two of them to the floor 
for debate; so rather than focus on jobs, we have a bill that is not 
only an assault on women, it is pure political posturing that is 
guaranteed to be vetoed, even if it makes it through the Senate. The 
President has made that clear.
  We need to focus on what the vast majority of the American people 
have asked us to do: create greater economic opportunity for all 
Americans.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlelady said what the American people care about. Well, a 
Marist poll released this month found that 68 percent of the 
respondents oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. A February 2014 CNN 
poll showed that 56 percent of the respondents opposed public funding 
of abortion. A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed 67 
percent of the respondents opposed Federal funding of abortions.
  A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed 61 percent of the 
respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that 
includes abortion. A September 2009 International Communications 
Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed measures 
that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their 
Federal taxes.
  We know what the American people care about.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just have to end with what I started with. There is 
no Federal taxpayer funding for abortion. There has not been for many 
decades.
  Some people, like me, think that this is an ill-conceived public 
policy, but it is the law of the land, it is the law of the land every 
year in the appropriations bill, and it is part of the compromise that 
was negotiated with the Affordable Care Act, so we need to keep that in 
mind as we talk about what this legislation does.
  What this legislation will do is it will take away the ability of 
women in the exchanges to buy comprehensive health care insurance with 
their own money.
  Now, I heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle today talk 
about their deep concerns about abortion and unwanted pregnancies. 
Well, I will tell you something: if you want to reduce unwanted 
pregnancies--which all of us in this room do--what you need to do is 
give women quality health insurance with robust family planning and a 
full range of health care services.
  The Guttmacher Institute, in a 2010 study, showed, happily, that teen 
pregnancy in this country was at the lowest rate in over 30 years. Do 
you know why? Two reasons: number one, birth control for these 
teenagers; and, number two, comprehensive health insurance.
  This Congress which has passed, over and over again, restrictions on 
birth control access--not just for teens, but for all women--and 
restrictions on comprehensive family planning is actually passing 
legislation that is going to stop this decrease in unwanted teen 
pregnancies.
  It is an ill-conceived policy. It is a wrongheaded policy. If we want 
to stop unwanted pregnancies, the way to do it is to have comprehensive 
health insurance for all American women.
  Now, the majority, at the last minute, pulled the bill with the 
egregious provisions on rape that would have required rape victims to 
affirmatively go to the police before they could raise the exception, 
but don't make any mistake about it, this bill is just as egregious as 
that bill.
  The reason it is is because, in an unprecedented move, it stops 
American women and their families from being able to get comprehensive 
health insurance with their own money.
  What would happen is it would open up a significant divide between 
the coverage that large employers would give to families and small 
employers and individuals.
  Now, the other thing this does is it reopens the debate and the 
compromise that we had in the Affordable Care Act. The compromise we 
made in that bill was that there would be no public funding for 
abortion under the Affordable Care Act.
  It was negotiated, it was agreed upon, and as the other side 
admitted, the President issued an executive order saying he would 
enforce the current law on that, and, in fact, that is what happened.
  The act required two separate premium payments for women and their 
families who receive premium tax credits and choose coverage that 
includes abortion services. The act is clear in its language. No 
portion of premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of 
comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplaces 
that relates to abortion services.
  The compromise was agreed upon by pro-life groups like the Catholic 
Health Association and everybody else, and now, this compromise is 
being thrown out the window.
  Well, our opponents say there was a GAO report last September that 
said that insurance companies were not segregating the funds, so they 
say that that means, somehow, Federal dollars are being used to pay for 
abortions.
  Well, after that GAO study came out, Madam Speaker, the HHS 
promulgated a new rule clarifying the agreement under the Affordable 
Care Act that the funds had to be segregated, and they promulgated this 
rule on Wednesday, November 26.
  Madam Speaker, I will insert that proposed rule into the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  So this compromise is being honored by the administration.
  Now, early in this debate, I asked my opponents to please give me one 
example where Federal taxpayer dollars have been used to pay for 
abortions. I haven't heard that example, and it is because it is not 
happening. This is a false issue that is being raised.
  I would submit to everybody here: let's stop talking about this false 
issue just because there are a whole bunch of people in town who want 
us to pass some legislation; let's talk about some real issues.
  We just received a Statement of Administration Policy from the White 
House. Not surprisingly, the administration has said that the President 
would veto this bill. The bill is likely dead on arrival in the Senate, 
but even if it did pass, it would be vetoed.

[[Page 985]]

  I have a suggestion for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: 
let's take up some issues that the women and families of America care 
about; let's take up the issue of how we are going to give women good 
jobs with comprehensive health insurance, so they can make their own 
decisions, along with their family and their doctor.
  Let's talk about legislation that will allow women of America to get 
jobs that have equal pay for equal work to the men. Let's talk about a 
bill that will give tax credits for families who have to struggle every 
month to pay for child care for their little kids. Let's talk about 
that.

                              {time}  1230

  And finally, let's talk about parental leave, which virtually every 
other country in the world has, so that when families have children 
whom they love so much and want to take care of, they won't have to go 
back to work because their employer doesn't pay them for family leave. 
Let's talk about that because, Madam Speaker, that is what the women 
and families of America want us to talk about.
  I urge us to reject this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

       g. Segregation of Funds for Abortion Services 
     (Sec. 156.280)
       Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280 
     specify accounting and other standards for issuers of QHPs 
     through the Exchange in the individual market that cover 
     abortion services for which public funding is prohibited 
     (also referred to as non-excepted abortion services). The 
     statute and regulations establish that unless otherwise 
     prohibited by State law, a QHP issuer may elect to cover such 
     services. If an issuer elects to cover such services under a 
     QHP sold through the individual market Exchange, the issuer 
     must take certain steps to ensure that no premium tax credit 
     or cost-sharing reduction funds are used to pay claims for 
     abortion services for which public funding may not be used.
       We are providing guidance on an individual market Exchange 
     issuer's responsibilities with respect to requirements 
     related to QHP coverage of abortion services for which public 
     funding is prohibited. HHS works with stakeholders, including 
     States and issuers, to help them fully understand and follow 
     the statutes and regulations governing the provision of 
     health insurance coverage under a QHP through the Exchange. 
     As is the case with many provisions in the Affordable Care 
     Act, States and State insurance commissioners are the 
     entities primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing 
     the provisions in section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act 
     related to individual market QHP coverage of nonexcepted 
     abortion services. OPM may issue guidance related to these 
     provisions for multi-State plan issuers.
       Under section 1303(b)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, as 
     implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(i), individual market 
     Exchange issuers must collect a separate payment from each 
     enrollee, for an amount equal to the AV of the coverage for 
     abortions for which public funding is prohibited. However, 
     section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280 do 
     not specify the method an issuer must use to comply with the 
     separate payment requirement. This provision may be satisfied 
     in a number of ways. Several such ways include, but are not 
     limited to: sending the enrollee a single monthly invoice or 
     bill that separately itemizes the premium amount for 
     nonexcepted abortion services; sending a separate monthly 
     bill for these services; or sending the enrollee a notice at 
     or soon after the time of enrollment that the monthly invoice 
     or bill will include a separate charge for such services and 
     specify the charge. Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act 
     permits, but does not require a QHP issuer to separately 
     identify the premium for non-excepted abortion services on 
     the monthly premium bill in order to comply with the separate 
     payment requirement. A consumer may pay the premium for non-
     excepted abortion services and for all other services in a 
     single transaction, with the issuer depositing the funds into 
     the issuer's separate allocation accounts as required by 
     section 1301(b)(2)(C) of the Affordable Care Act, as 
     implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(ii) and Sec. 156.280(e)(3).
       Section 1303(b)(2)(D) of the Affordable Care Act, as 
     implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(4), establishes requirements 
     for individual market Exchange issuers with respect to how 
     much they must charge each QHP enrollee for coverage of 
     abortions for which public funding is prohibited. A QHP 
     issuer must estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, 
     determined on an average actuarial basis, for including 
     coverage of non-excepted abortion services. In making this 
     estimate, a QHP issuer may not estimate the basic cost of 
     coverage for non-excepted abortion services to be less than 
     one dollar per enrollee, per month. This means that an issuer 
     must charge each QHP enrollee a minimum premium of one dollar 
     per month for coverage of non-excepted abortion services.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


              H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

             (Rep. Smith, R-New Jersey, and 20 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7. The legislation 
     would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to 
     health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans; 
     unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that 
     consumers have today; and restrict the District of Columbia's 
     use of local funds, which undermines home rule. Longstanding 
     Federal policy prohibits the use of Federal funds for 
     abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the 
     life of the woman would be endangered. This prohibition is 
     maintained in the Affordable Care Act and reinforced through 
     the President's Executive Order 13535. H.R. 7 would go well 
     beyond these safeguards by interfering with consumers' 
     private health care choices. The Administration strongly 
     opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's 
     reproductive freedoms and consumers' private insurance 
     options.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 7 his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, on the so-called compromise, I offered the Hyde language in 
the committee, and we won in a bipartisan vote. Chairman Waxman 
recessed, changed the votes, stripped it out, and brought it to the 
floor without Hyde. I was involved in the negotiation.
  I wrote the Stupak-Pitts amendment. I know what the compromise is 
with the so-called executive order. It is full of loopholes. The Hyde 
amendment does not apply to the Affordable Care Act.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), another pro-life champion.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, make no mistake about what this debate is about. H.R. 
7 codifies that no taxpayer money would be given for abortions.
  But the real debate on the floor today is about life. We are talking 
about life in the people's House, on the floor of the people's House. 
We are talking about a gift from God. We are talking about something 
that was so well put into our Declaration of Independence--life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the first of those being life. I 
understand that there is a serious debate about that.
  There are times that people say: Listen, we are not really ready 
right now for this child. But expectant mothers and unborn children 
have got to be protected. My goodness, in a nation that recoils at the 
news around the world, at the loss of life, and says this is horrible 
what is happening in Syria, this is horrible what is happening in the 
Mideast, this is horrible that this is happening, then we want to go 
there, and we want to rush to help people because there is a loss of 
life, and then in our own country we have turned a blind eye and a deaf 
ear to the loss of 56 million unborn children. These are lives that 
were lost that did not have to be lost.
  I know there is a law that says they have the right to make that 
decision. It may be legal, but I don't think it is right.
  As far as giving a gift to the 500,000 or so people that are in 
Washington today in the pro-life march, this is not a gift from the 
Republican Party to these people. This is a gift from our Creator, 
Himself, on reproduction. How we have demeaned this and reduced it down 
to a political discussion is absolutely abhorrent.
  Never, never has this country ever turned its back on the most 
vulnerable.
  I have been there for the birth of my four children. I have 10 
grandchildren now. I have also held the hands of my mother, my father, 
and my sister as they died. There is nothing more precious than life. 
There is just nothing more precious than that.
  I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 7 to answer the 
American people who say we do not want to fund abortion, to end this 
debate, and let's move forward.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, this bill is simply outrageous. It was bad 
enough that the

[[Page 986]]

Majority brought to the floor H.R. 36 outside the regular order. But 
the Majority had to pull that bill when the women in their Conference 
informed their Leadership just how bad the bill was and that they could 
not vote for it. Undeterred at its `war on women' the Majority pulled 
H.R. 36 and rushed to the floor an equally offensive bill, H.R. 7. This 
new bill, H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015 is simply an attempt to 
substitute one anti-family bill for another. Timed to coincide with the 
annual pro-life march in Washington, this is a blatant attempt at 
pandering to their base.
  During the last elections, the Republicans made quite a show of how 
they would run the Congress by regular order and make Congress work for 
the American people. However, we have had mere hours notice that this 
bill would even be brought to the floor. The bill was introduced 
yesterday and has already been fast tracked by the leadership to be on 
the floor this morning! Needless to say, there was NO committee debate 
and NO opportunity to amend the bill in any way. No one has even had a 
chance to read the bill. Who says those in Congress can't get things 
done quickly when they want to?
  Supporters of the bill argue that it will simply codify the Hyde 
amendment and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion. 
However, we all know that is false. H.R. 7 is actually much more 
nefarious than that. It seeks to restrict women's reproductive rights 
and access to health care; increase healthcare premiums for many 
Americans and small businesses; and, limit the private insurance 
choices of consumers. It will almost certainly guarantee that insurance 
companies will no longer offer abortion coverage to consumers.
  The Republicans in the House are continuing the mission to completely 
eliminate women's reproductive rights and their access to healthcare. 
As with the previous version of this bill, H.R. 7 is nothing more than 
a statement bill.
  In addition, this bill also undermines the D.C. home rule. H.R. 7 
prohibits D.C. from using its own Medicaid funds to provide abortion, 
language that is already included in the annual appropriations bill. 
This is despite the fact that 17 states currently use their own state 
funds to provide abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is the antithesis of Republicans stated goal of 
``small government.'' How can the Majority be so hypocritical? The 
Republican Majority is using this bill to reach into the lives of 
millions of Americans and make their health care decisions for them.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, our Great Nation was founded 
upon the idea that ALL men are ``endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable Rights.'' And the first right mentioned in our Declaration 
of Independence is that of Life. We must do all we can to uphold this 
most fundamental value.
  Today is the anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade ruling. In 
response, thousands of people have come to Washington, DC to 
participate in the annual March for Life so that those who cannot speak 
for themselves do have a voice.
  In solidarity, the House is also taking action to uphold our founding 
principles and protect our unborn by voting to reaffirm that no federal 
funding--including Obamacare subsidies--shall be used to pay for or 
subsidize abortions. At a time when our national debt is over $18 
trillion, to allow any federal funding for abortions would be a breach 
in the trust that the American public has placed in us to be good 
stewards of taxpayers' dollars--but more importantly, to protect our 
unborn.
  I have consistently cosponsored and voted for legislation that 
continues the prohibition on federal funding for abortions, and I fully 
support H.R. 7. I am dedicated to protecting the sanctity of human 
life, which begins at conception. While today's vote is crucial to 
protecting the unborn, we cannot rest. Therefore I look forward to 
joining millions of Americans as we continue the important work of 
fully protecting our God-given right to Life for ALL, including our 
most innocent.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, Groundhog Day isn't for a couple more 
weeks, but you wouldn't know that from looking at the Republican 
majority's agenda these past few weeks. They've brought up one partisan 
bill after another that already proved unsuccessful in previous years.
  Today, we are revisiting the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, 
which is misleading and redundant to say the least and represents yet 
another attempt by Republicans to restrict a woman's reproductive 
rights and access to lifesaving health services. In fact, it's their 
second attempt this week after they had to pull a controversial and 
unconstitutional 20-week (abortion) ban due to lack of support on their 
side of the aisle.
  The contradiction between this narrow, ideological agenda and the 
message Republicans attempted to convey in their response to the 
President's State of the Union address this week--in which they claimed 
they would be ``working to change the direction in Washington'' and 
passing ``serious job-creation ideas''--is stark.
  Aside from denying care to women in the most desperate of 
circumstances, this bill would go beyond the current Hyde Amendment to 
place restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend 
private dollars in purchasing health insurance. It is a prima facie 
infringement of women's constitutional rights.
  Madam Speaker, as polarizing as these debates continue to be, I 
believe we should make decisions based on this country's founding 
principles of personal liberty that should always guide this body on 
the subject of women's reproductive health.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I join with women's 
rights advocates, health care stakeholders, and religious groups in 
opposing H.R. 7, the Unprecedented, Radical Assault on Women's Health 
Care Act. This piece of legislation is another attempt by politicians 
to control women's private health care choices.
  As we emerge from one of the worst economic crises in our nation's 
history, Congressional leaders should focus on bills to increase 
Americans' paychecks, create jobs, improve education, and incentivize 
investment in America rather than jeopardize the health of American 
women and undermine longstanding Supreme Court precedence regarding 
women's reproductive health.
  Politicians are not medical experts, yet this bill today allows 
politicians to control women's private health care decisions. Politics 
should not drive medical decisions.
  I firmly believe that the American people wish to see their 
representatives focus on proactive policies that strengthen our economy 
and address their health care needs, such as by increasing access to 
affordable health care and reducing health disparities. Rather than 
imposing national restrictions on private medical decisions, 
policymakers should focus on keeping Americans healthy via 
comprehensive health care, healthy pregnancies, and healthy children. 
Rather than allowing the federal government to violate the basic 
constitutional rights of women, we should increase our investment in 
research and development, help students afford and succeed in college, 
raise the minimum wage, strengthen our roads and bridges, and invest in 
our communities.
  America needs policymakers who support our citizens, not who 
subordinate them. I cannot support this bill that allows politics to 
control women's medical choices, and I urge my colleagues to oppose.
  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. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
misleadingly titled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
  This deceivingly-titled bill does nothing more than dramatically 
restrict the ability of women to purchase affordable health insurance 
without forfeiting their constitutionally protected right to buy health 
coverage that includes reproductive services. Federal policy, including 
explicit language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), already prohibits 
the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Existing law in the ACA 
states that any individual who joins a plan that covers abortions will 
pay an additional fee that goes into a separate account; this was 
specifically designed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on 
abortions. The fee is only paid by people who knowingly joined a health 
plan that covers abortions, and any abortion (except in cases of rape, 
incest,

[[Page 987]]

or to save the mother's life) coverage is paid out of those accounts--
not by taxpayer dollars.
  The ACA also provides that individuals purchasing their health care 
from the recently established exchanges can, depending on their income, 
access tax credits and ensure that their health care plan is 
affordable. This bill would deny women access to the tax credits on 
their health plans even though the tax credit does not cover any of the 
cost of plans that include abortion coverage. In other words, women 
will be denied access to affordable health care if they exercise their 
right to use their own funds for abortion coverage. This is 
unacceptable and violates the careful balance established in the ACA. 
Whether women purchase their insurance through the marketplace 
exchanges or receive it through their employers, millions of American 
women would be denied their choice of affordable health care coverage.
  A woman's right to choose her own health care is a fundamental one, 
and the Congress should not tell women how to manage their private 
health or reproductive care. Sadly, this legislation will do just that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on women. 
This bill was a mistake the first two times it was proposed, and it 
remains a mistake today. Instead of attacking a woman's access to 
health care, we should be focused on accelerating job growth and 
increasing the paychecks of working Americans.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, once more, Republicans are seeking to 
limit women's access to safe reproductive health care through H.R. 7, 
the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This is a sweeping ban on 
abortion coverage and another callous attempt to insert Congress into 
the most personal of conversations between a woman and her physician 
and I did not vote for it.
  Last week marked the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court 
decision, Roe v. Wade. It is exasperating that we still have to go 
through this annual charade as Republican leadership tries to force 
those of us who support women and their reproductive choices to take a 
``hard vote.''
  It is not hard for me to stand with the millions of women who depend 
on access to safe, legal abortion. It is not hard for me to vote 
against any bill that imposes the will of an intolerant, albeit vocal, 
minority on our mothers, sisters, and daughters. It is not hard for me 
to protect freedom of choice, because it is right and it is just.
  Instead of bringing up legislation to strengthen our economy or 
improve our infrastructure, Republican leadership is choosing to focus 
its efforts on legislation that will trump women's health, override 
family decisions, and compromise the ability of women and their doctors 
to deal with reproductive issues. It's a blatant attack on women and 
it's not hard for me to say that it is wrong.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 42, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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 it in its current 
form.
  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 
     same 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 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 or use of comprehensive health 
     insurance coverage.

  Mrs. BLACKBURN (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I reserve a point 
of order against the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
and it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If this 
amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, will immediately proceed to 
final passage.
  As the Clerk has indicated, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit 
would merely protect the medical privacy of millions of women, 
including those women who are victims of rape and incest. It would 
ensure that nothing in H.R. 7, the underlying legislation, could be 
construed to allow any entity to violate the medical privacy of any 
woman, including these victims, when it comes to her choice of 
comprehensive health care services.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard a great debate here today, and we have 
heard, Madam Speaker, the majority party insist that we need to codify 
the 1976 Hyde amendment prohibiting poor women from having abortions.
  I can assure you that, as we have looked over the past 42 years here 
on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we have seen that low-income women--
particularly women of color--have been disproportionately impacted by 
the very successful implementation of the Hyde amendment. Women have 
been forced to choose between food and shelter. They have been forced 
to choose between the best interests of their health, and they have 
given birth, on many occasions, even despite their poor health status, 
their poor economic status, or their poor emotional status to children 
who are poor.
  We have heard data and statistics about the number of unborn persons 
as a result of abortion. We have not heard one single statistic about 
the number of children who are born in dire poverty only, Madam 
Speaker, to be humiliated in this Chamber over and over again, being 
called ``products of the culture of dependency,'' who are killed by 
cuts, death by 1,000 cuts--cuts to food stamps, cuts to WIC, cuts to 
Head Start, cuts to educational opportunity. Death by 1,000 cuts. We 
have not heard anyone on the other side speak about that misalignment.
  But with this legislation, it is not enough to stop low-income women, 
poor women, particularly women of color--African Americans, Asians, 
Native American women, Latinas--it is not enough to prevent them from 
abortions. Some of them have become pregnant because of rape and incest 
and forced trafficking who have diabetes and other underlying health 
problems. That is not enough.
  This legislation is so nefarious as to try to prevent the women who 
have been lucky enough to get a job in a small business, lucky enough 
to be able to afford to buy insurance and use their own money to buy 
insurance--they have been lucky enough to do that--to prevent them, by 
some extraneous nexus--supposedly health care-funded payments through 
the Affordable Care Act--from seeking this health care. This is really, 
really a backdoor approach to really trying to undermine the law of the 
land, Roe v. Wade.
  Many women, Madam Speaker, know on a personal level the history of 
shame and stigma that come forward when they are trying to seek the 
best remedy for their life at that time, for whatever reason that they 
need to have an abortion.
  I know personally, Madam Speaker, of young women who have been 13 
years old and who have become victims of statutory rape, and the best 
solution for their lives at that time and for their health is an 
abortion because their life is truly in danger. This is the kind of 
bill that would prevent them from having that opportunity.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that you will accept this motion to recommit, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I 
claim the time in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of charges and 
accusations that were made by some of

[[Page 988]]

my colleagues as they have chosen to describe the bill before us today, 
H.R. 7, so I want to be clear about what the bill before us does do and 
does accomplish.
  This bill follows a longstanding principle, as my colleague said, 
going back to 1976, the principle that the American people and Members 
from both sides of the aisle in both Chambers of Congress have 
supported for decades, and that is taxpayer dollars should not be spent 
on abortions and abortion coverage. The vast majority of my colleagues 
voted for this exact same principle in countless appropriations bills, 
including a bill that we passed out of this Chamber last month. Yet 
today, some Members are fighting the widely shared belief that taxpayer 
dollars should not be used to take an innocent life.
  The bill before us today also provides much-needed transparency 
regarding which health plans on the exchange pay for abortions. The 
Obama administration promised to provide Congress and the American 
people a list of plans in ObamaCare that covered abortion, yet they 
refused to live up to that promise. They forced Congress to act. And, 
indeed, the GAO has informed us that 1,036 plans include abortion 
coverage. There is no excuse--no excuse--to hide information about 
abortion coverage from the American people.
  Madam Speaker, 68 percent, a vast majority of the American people 
believe there should be no taxpayer money used for abortion and 
abortion coverage.
  HHS has forced Congress to act on this issue. The commonsense 
transparency requirement that is in H.R. 7 is needed, and it is 
supported by all Members. So that is what this bill is about, following 
an established bipartisan principle and providing transparency.
  I urge my colleagues, each and every one, to vote to protect life, to 
vote to protect taxpayer dollars, and to promote transparency by 
rejecting the motion to recommit and supporting the underlying bill. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the recommittal.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 177, 
nays 240, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               YEAS--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Carter (TX)
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Forbes
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Meeks
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Rush
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1307

  Mrs. COMSTOCK, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. GARRETT changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FARR, KIND, BECERRA, and Mrs. CAPPS 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 for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 989]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     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)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carter (TX)
     Deutch
     Duckworth
     Forbes
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Marchant
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. KATKO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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 for:
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 45, I 
regrettably missed the vote, but I fully support this crucial 
legislation to protect the unborn. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 45, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, January 22, 2015 I was 
not present to vote on H.R. 7, legislation intruding on women's 
reproductive freedom and access to health care. I wish the record to 
reflect my intentions had I been present to vote. Had I been present 
for roll call No. 45, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________